Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 6 February.

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE SAFETY BILL (By Order)

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Trust Ports

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in privatising the trust ports in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): A proposal for a draft Order in Council, which would provide the necessary powers to enable any of Northern Ireland's trust ports to be privatised, is currently under preparation. It is scheduled for publication in the summer at which time all interested parties will have an opportunity to comment.

Mr. Field: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but will he ensure that the employees of the trust ports have an opportunity to purchase shares and partake in the wealth created, thereby furthering the Government's privatisation proposals and the extension of share ownership? Does he agree that those policies have constituted one of the successful planks of the social revolution in this country since 1979?

Mr. Needham: I can certainly confirm that it is our intention to ensure that the legislation contains proposals such as my hon. Friend suggested, just as there are in the legislation that applies to the rest of the country. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) will oppose our present privatisation proposal with the same degree of enthusiasm that he opposed the privatisation proposals introduced on Monday. I doubt whether he will have an opportunity to meddle in the affairs of the Northern Ireland ports, but, were he to do so, as he comes from Wigan his knowledge of the pier might be of assistance.

Mr. Beggs: What is the present level of grant paid to each of the port authorities in Northern Ireland? What change will be made to the level of grant paid to those ports which move from trust status to the private sector? When will we have a level playing field in Northern Ireland with fair competition between all ports?

Mr. Needham: We shall have a level playing field as long as the present Administration are able to continue their privatisation policy. The proposals adopted by the EC mean that 75 per cent. of grant is available to publicly owned or trust ports and, under the European regional development fund rules, 50 per cent. is available to privately owned ports. That is a matter for the EC and the Commission to decide, not the Government.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister will have noted that other people have joined the anti-privatisation lobby in relation to electricity, as he will have discovered on Monday. There is great concern in Northern Ireland, especially following a report from a Committee of the House on land in the harbour region which was sold off cheaply when Harland and Wolff was privatised. Will the Minister assure the House that, whatever privatisation


plans he has for the trust ports, there will be no recognition of those people who seem to have an interest in cashing in on the endeavours for their own ends?

Mr. Needham: The Government have an obligation to Parliament and to the taxpayer to ensure maximum proceeds from any privatisation of land. Whether that happens ultimately will be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee to judge. There is great potential in the land around the port in Belfast and it is important that, when that land is sold, it is sold to a company capable of developing it to the best advantage of the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland.

New Roads, South Antrim

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total figure will be for new road schemes in the Antrim, South constituency for (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95.

Mr. Needham: Following an adjustment in planned expenditure, it is now intended to spent £0.5 million in 1993–94 on the construction of a slip road from the M2 motorway to ensure that it is in place when the new Antrim hospital opens. No expenditure will be incurred on major road schemes in the other two years.

Mr. Forsythe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very good reply. As he knows, the decision made at an earlier stage not to complete the slip road was considered to be ludicrous. Is he aware of the difficulties experienced on the part of the A26 that has not yet been dualled? Is he further aware that a number of patients from a wide area—indeed, from as distant as Larne—will be going to the hospital, meaning that good roads are essential to serve the hospital?

Mr. Needham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. My hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for health in Northern Ireland is not able to be here today because he is on duty in the Province. He and I have had a series of meetings about the provision of the slip road, and he reminded me of an undertaking that I had given when Minister responsible for health matters a few years ago. So together we moved heaven and earth to ensure, in a difficult year, that the necessary money was made available.
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the A26. He will be aware, bearing in mind the other pressures we have on the budget this year, how difficult it has been to get a higher priority for roads. So long as I am responsible for transport in Northern Ireland, I shall continue to fight that corner as best I can.

RUC Special Branch

Mr. John Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the staff resources available to the special branch of the RUC.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): In the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, this information is confidential.

Mr. Browne: I accept the need for secrecy in the matter. Is the Minister satisfied that the present staffing levels are

sufficient to carry out the necessary pre-emptive intelligence work? When will the agreed 441 new RUC people be recruited?

Dr. Mawhinney: The Secretary of State announced in November, as my hon. Friend says, that the Chief Constable's request for 441 additional police officers would be met. The recruitment of those officers began immediately, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that more than 100 additional RUC and RUC reserve recruits were taken into training in December.

Mr. Maginnis: I am full of praise for the work that is being done by special branch in the RUC. Is the Minister aware that the best return for that good work is not being achieved in that shortcomings in the law allow the higher echelons of terrorist organisations—their command and control structures—to remain free to walk the streets with impunity, despite the fact that the RUC has provided high-grade intelligence about those people? Is he further aware that, in the wake of the Nelson trial, it is important to ensure that absolute primacy of the RUC in delivering law and order to the people of Northern Ireland?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the compliment that he paid to the special branch and to the RUC. I am sure that it is shared on both sides of the House, as it is from the Dispatch Box. If the hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable expert in these matters, thinks that specific aspects of the law should be addressed, I shall be happy to hear from him.

Mr. Mallon: Does the Minister agree that in any society, the public interest requires a system of law enforcement and justice that all can support and in which all can have confidence? Does he believe that that is possible in Northern Ireland, when some sections of the security services are colluding with terrorists, when they are using terrorists as agents while they are involved in terrorist activity and when some members of the security services are handing out confidential security documents as though they were pen-pal photographs? What changes will he and the Secretary of State demand so that the integrity of the law can be protected from some of those who are charged with enforcing it?

Dr. Mawhinney: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, the latter part of which related to a court case that has not yet been concluded, so it would be inappropriate and imprudent of me to comment on it now. My answer to the first part of his question is that in the few weeks that I have had my present portfolio, two or three times in public I have stated my firm belief that it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, the police and the security forces—indeed, in the interests of all of us —that the law be applied even-handedly and that those responsible for applying the law should do so.

Mr. McNamara: Can the Minister assure the House that he entirely supports the primacy of the police in all security matters? If so, will he now state to the House that the police are, and should always be, in control of all intelligence operations in Northern Ireland? So that all sections of the community can have confidence in the security forces, will the Government undertake to make a statement to the House after the conclusion of the Nelson case?

Dr. Mawhinney: I have already made my position clear in regard to the Nelson case, and I have nothing more to add. As for the primacy of the police, the view of Ministers is that that is not in question.

Economic Prospects

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future prospects for the Northern Ireland economy.

Mr. Needham: Although Northern Ireland's economic prospects are closely linked to those of the rest of the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland economy has fared better than that of almost any other United Kingdom region in recent years. As the national economy moves out of recession, Northern Ireland is therefore well placed to take advantage of the economic upturn.

Mr. Trimble: As the Minister says, the Northern Ireland economy is closely linked to that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Experience has tended to show that its pattern moves somewhat behind that of the United Kingdom in terms of time. The rest of the United Kingdom now seems to be beginning to move out of recession; is it not true that Northern Ireland is about to move deeper into it? Would the Minister care to comment on a recent report by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—a firm of consultants on which the Government normally rely—which states that industrial output is likely to decline by between 2 and 4 per cent. this year, and that unemployment may increase by some 10,000 as a result?

Mr. Needham: That may have been true until the current recession, but the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong about the present circumstances. Whereas in the past Northern Ireland was always the furthest point on the beach that the tide reached, and therefore the first point that it left, on this occasion we entered the recession later and weathered it better. The unemployment figures demonstrate that Northern Ireland was the only part of the United Kingdom that experienced no increase in unemployment; the Cambridge econometric forecast shows that last year it was the only region that experienced any growth, and that this year it is likely to be one of four regions that will experience growth.
Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte is probably the worst of a lot of very bad forecasters. For example, it forecast an increase in unemployment of 3,000 for 1986–87; in fact unemployment fell by 6,800. It forecast a decrease of 5,000 for 1987–88; in fact, the decrease was 7,800. It forecast a fall of 3,000 for 1988–89; the actual decrease was 9,500. Perhaps economic forecasters and consultants should consider the beam in their own eye before criticising the Government's figures.

Rev. William McCrea: My constituency has the second highest unemployment in the United Kingdom. Does not the Minister realise that the unemployment figures in the Province are deplorable? Young people face lengthening dole queues. Will the Minister tell the House and the people of the Province what measure he intends to take to assist people over 45 whose age condemns them to humiliating interviews and, indeed, rejection? Many of them have done excellent work in the past.

Mr. Needham: The Government's job training programme includes a series of measures to assist those

over the age of 25, and to ensure that they can receive an element of training. The same applies to the young unemployed. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the unacceptable level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to convey a sense of complacency; I am merely saying that the Northern Ireland economy has done very much better in the latest recession—and would have done better still had it not been for the appalling IRA atrocities that make inward investment so difficult.

Mr. Jim Marshall: This was the first time that I have heard the Minister quote figures with any satisfaction. I clearly understood why when I heard how they confirmed his view of the economy in Northern Ireland. He is an isolated figure in the Government because he is the first Minister whom I have heard speak highly of the work of the Cambridge school. Perhaps he should get in step with the rest of the Government.
Does the Minister agree that if those projects that are partly funded by the European Community fund do not proceed this year, there is a danger that there will he some damage to the economy of Northern Ireland? Does he further accept that this arises from the Government's refusal to accept European Community rules on additionality? If he accepts both those propositions, what pressure is the Northern Ireland Office putting on the Government to conform to those European Community rules?

Mr. Needham: The Government have always abided by, and agreed with, the additionality rules as far as they apply to Northern Ireland. It is unacceptable to us that there should be any withholding of funds due to Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, those funds are of importance to us in the provision of our capital infrastructure, although they are not totally significant.
I can quote a final figure to the hon. Gentleman, as he enjoys my quoting figures. It is that, according to the Department of Employment figures, if the Labour party's economic proposals for a minimum wage were put into effect it would cost some 2 million jobs, of which 50,000
would be in Northern Ireland, where we have a large number of women workers in the clothing, textile and garment industries. The hon. Gentleman's advancement to the ministerial Dispatch Box would be a disaster for employment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my hon. Friend further underline that the greatest; threat to the economic prosperity of both the Province and the Republic of Ireland is terrorism? Will he emphasise again and again that the victims of terrorism are not just those who are maimed, injured and killed but the many people who are put on the dole because terrorism deters investment from elsewhere in Europe?

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All of us who have been involved in trying to increase employment in Northern Ireland know the damage that terrorism does to our chances of achieving that aim. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has, much more eloquently than I could, told us of the damage that it does and the effect that it has on the young people of Northern


Ireland because it gives them a future of either migration or unemployment. That is the hideous hypocrisy of the IRA's campaign.

Housing Executive

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the funding of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

Mr. Needham: The total resources available to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in 1992–93 will be around £483 million. These substantial resources will enable the executive to continue the progress that it has made in recent years in improving housing conditions in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the cut of £19–9 million from £262 million in the 1992–93 budget is a dramatic reduction given that the proposal for the programme of building and house repairs in Northern Ireland agreed by the Government was already the lowest in the history of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive? Is he aware that there are 23,000 people on the waiting list—10,000 in urgent need—and that urban regeneration will be set back? Allied to this is the disastrous state of the building and construction industry. Can I encourage the Minister to do the double by restoring the funding so as to enable much-needed house building and repairs to go ahead, and at the same time give the necessary financial boost to the devastated building and construction industry?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the record of this Government on housing in Northern Ireland since 1979 is without parallel. Any visitors who come to the Province can see the quality of public housing in Northern Ireland. The urgent waiting list has reduced from some 18,800 in 1981 to 9,900 in 1991. The amount of new housing in Northern Ireland, as everyone can see, has changed the housing situation from one of the worst in Europe to one of the best in Europe. That does not mean that we do not still have problems in rural areas.
The hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government must order their priorities and he knows the extent of construction needed after buildings have been bombed. Therefore, we must all continue to point out that the bombing of houses, bridges and roads inevitably impacts on our ability to find funds elsewhere. The construction industry in Northern Ireland is not in a disastrous decline —private house building has maintained its growth rate and has the best record anywhere in the country.

Mr. Kilfedder: A colossal number of Housing Executive dwellings in my constituency are in urgent need of renovation—I am thinking of the housing estates at Tullycarnet, Ballybeen, Groomsport, Bangor and Holyrood. May I urge the Minister to give sufficient funds to the Housing Executive to enable the work to go ahead without further delay?

Mr. Needham: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman why the funding for the Housing Executive is not as easy this year as it has perhaps been in former years. I take his point about maintenance and I shall of course draw it to the Housing Executive's attention. It is the Housing Executive's responsibility to determine how it spends the

funds that the Government make available to it. I say again that in Northern Ireland the Housing Executive has spent a great deal more per capita than is the case elsewhere and that can be seen by anyone who visits public sector housing in Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister ensure that when the Housing Executive engages in new build it will incorporate in every scheme a large number of two-bedroomed bungalows and a number of houses especially built to cater for the needs of the disabled? That would allow a tremendous movement of people from under-utilised accommodation to smaller accommodation and would allow many people who have been on the waiting list for council houses for many years to be moved into smaller accommodation. It would create a domino effect across the board.

Mr. Needham: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I am sure that the Housing Executive will want to consider it and I shall personally bring it to its attention.

Mr. Stott: There is no doubt about the high quality of housing stock that has been built by the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland and every time I see it I am envious and wish that I had some of it in Wigan. Will the Minister confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, which was that the Housing Executive has lost about £19 million of funding for 1991–92 and that that will have a serious effect on new build? It is alleged that those cuts are occasioned by the additional costs of dealing with terrorism. Will he confirm that the Housing Executive believes that during the period 1992–95 it will lose a further £50 million from its anticipated budget if the cuts are not restored? That would have a disastrous effect on waiting lists in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Needham: Every year that I have been Minister with responsibility for housing—it is now six years—the Housing Executive has suggested an amount which it hopes that the Government will give it, while knowing perfectly well that it will not get all that it asks for. The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not those proposed by the Government but those which the Housing Executive says that it could spend. The actual reduction is about £7 million. Although I should have preferred there to be no reduction, the fact that the priorities within the Northern Ireland block are law, order and security inevitably means that there are consequences which fall to other matters, and housing is one. The important point is that on which the hon. Gentleman put his finger—the quality of housing in Northern Ireland. As it improves and as housing unfitness is reduced, there is less need to spend so much on it, which allows resources to be spent elsewhere.

Investment

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the value of inward investment in Northern Ireland since 1979.

Mr. Needham: Since 1983 selective financial assistance totalling £104 million has been offered to projects with a


total forecast investment of nearly £320 million. Comprehensive figures for non-assisted projects and for the years 1979–83 are not available.

Mr. Coombs: It would be idle to speculate on what the figures might have been if it were not for the security situation. Can my hon. Friend say whether the recent bombing campaign has had any impact on prospects for future investment, and whether any new initiatives are under consideration to boost the figures further?

Mr. Needham: All the statutory agencies in Northern Ireland do whatever they can to boost investment. Clearly, the recent bombing campaign in Northern Ireland does not help our attempts to attract inward investment, but all parties in the House, as part of a Northern Ireland team, work together on ways of trying to get more investment. We have been most successful in the past few years in attracting investment from 18 countries. The IRA campaign leaves an image which is a travesty of the reality of life in Northern Ireland. People who visit always seem astonished by the normalcy of the life of the vast majority of the people most of the time. It would sometimes help if that normalcy were a little better portrayed by the likes of such as the BBC and by those journalists who earn their living by reporting only violence.

Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister agree that the best prospect of reaching and sustaining adequate inward investment will arise only when right hon. and hon. Members representing the people of Northern Ireland put aside their petty differences and continue talks with the Secretary of State to bring the violence in the Province to an end?

Mr. Needham: Whatever differences may or may not exist, it is erring on the side of arrogance to suggest that they are petty. The differences are deep and go far back into history, but while I have been a Minister dealing with the economy and the environment I have always had the greatest possible collaboration from all the parties in Northern Ireland, which have always worked cheek by jowl with one another and with me for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the politicians of Northern Ireland for doing that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that there is a roadblock on investment in the construction industry because of the problem of landlocking? There is a big case of investment being held up in Ahoghill, and it is also being held up in Carrickfergus, and other places, too. Will the Minister undertake to consider that problem seriously?

Mr. Needham: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mallon: I hope that I shall not embarrass the Minister if I commend him again for his imaginative efforts and the time that he has spent abroad trying to develop inward investment. When he considers the figures for the past 10 years, does he have any plans for structural changes involving inward investment teams, especially in the United States? While we await the outcome of the general election, does he have any plans to discuss with the Northern Ireland parties how best we can all further inward investment? Despite what are often called our petty differences, inward investment is something on which we all agree.

Mr. Needham: I should very much like the opportunity to discuss with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and other colleagues from Northern Ireland, how we can introduce a strategy for promoting inward investment over a longer time scale than that hitherto adopted. If the hon. Gentleman's words were an invitation to me, I shall take up that invitation.
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work on the link between Pittsburgh and Newry. That is a good case history, which shows a way forward by building confidence between potential overseas investors and parts of Northern Ireland. I am sure that we can build on that and that it will be ever more successful.

Security

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Belfast.

Dr. Mawhinney: The security situation in Belfast is kept under constant review and the size and disposition of the security force effort there are adjusted as necessary. In recent weeks, a number of additional measures have been introduced and the security forces have had considerable success in disrupting planned terrorist activity.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. May I pass on to him some of the comments made to me by people I know in Belfast? They have welcomed the increased presence of our defence forces in their beleaguered city. May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention a report in the Sunday Express pointing out that paramilitaries convicted of bombing and murder are sheltering in the Republic are drawing more than £2 million per week in dole money and social security, paid for by the British taxpayer, while many would face reconviction if they returned to Ulster? Will my hon. Friend please look into the matter because those people are living off the system that they seek to destroy with their bombs and bullets?

Dr. Mawhinney: I know of my hon. Friend's deep interest in the affairs of the Province and I thank her for it. I am aware of the speculative piece to which she refers. An individual's entitlement to social security benefit, including whether or not he or she receives benefit, is confidential information. I confirm that all claims to benefit are treated strictly in accordance with the law, and benefit would not be paid to any person unless the entitlement was valid.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Will the Minister comment on the proposal to close the strategically placed Royal Ulster Constabulary station at Springfield parade in north-west Belfast?

Dr. Mawhinney: No, but if the hon. Gentleman has views that he would like to express to me on that closure, I should be delighted to hear from him.

Mr. Hume: Will the Minister ask the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to get her facts right and stop promoting bias in the House? Will he remind her that 98 per cent. of all people convicted of crimes of violence in Northern Ireland are residents of Northern Ireland?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman has made his own effective point in his own effective way. Having read the article, I admit that aspects of it caused my eyebrows to rise.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can Her Majesty's Ministers use the time before there is any question of political talks resuming to take the initiative in the security situation in Belfast and elsewhere in the Province? For normal political life to be maintained in Northern Ireland, is it not critical to defeat terrorism, and must not that defeat come before political changes or constitutional arrangements?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but he would wish to put it in the context of the fact that security policy works alongside political, economic and social policy. There is no quick fix to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend should be in no doubt, however, that we have that commitment. May I encourage him by telling him that the Chief Constable's view is that four out of every five planned terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland are thwarted before they take place? Last year, we took 400 people to court charged with terrorist-related offences, including 38 for murder. My hon. Friend will have welcomed the substantial arms and explosives finds in Belfast just a few weeks ago.

Rathlin Island

Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in providing Rathlin island with mains electricity.

Mr. Needham: Preparations to provide mains electricity on Rathlin island are progressing satisfactorily, and supply is expected to be available to consumers in September.

Ms. Hoey: I am pleased at the progress on that issue, but may I ask the Minister now to look urgently at the decision to allow a Scottish ferry company to run the ferry between Rathlin and Ballycastle? Does he realise that the islanders have run the ferry for many years and that until this year they received not a penny of subsidy, unlike the Scottish ferries? Why does he wish to take away the Rathliners' jobs? Will he please look at this urgently and change his decision?

Mr. Needham: Absolutely no decision of any sort has been made as regards the introduction of Cal-Mac. The hon. Lady knows those ferry owners as well as I do. I have made it perfectly clear to the ferry owners in Rathlin that we shall do nothing without discussing it with them and the islanders' development and community association. Those discussions have been going on with everyone involved. We need to ensure that we get a ferry between Rathlin and Ballycastle which can operatate the whole year round and open the island much more to tourist traffic and economic development. We are having the ferry company over to see how it works, but no decision has been made. We shall look at this very carefully and have discussions with the current owners and with everybody on the island before anything is decided.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be a welcome across the House for his response to the questions? It is important to have both mains electricity and improvements to the harbours at

Ballycastle and Church Bay. There will be a great welcome for the fact that there will be discussions with Richard Green and others who have kept Rathlin linked to the main part of Northern Ireland all these years.

Mr. Needham: I thank my hon. Friend, and give to the House the absolute commitment that nothing will be done on Rathlin island without the fullest possible co-operation with all the islanders and their association. Nothing will be imposed by the Department of the Environment without my having the closest opportunity to discuss all this with the islanders and their representatives myself.

Military Conflict

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the prospects for an early settlement to the military conflict in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Brooke): The actions of terrorists in Northern Ireland cannot be dignified with the description "military conflict". Peace will come when the terrorists realise, as they must, that they will never be allowed to prevail.

Mr. Hain: There is widespread admiration for the Secretary of State's persistence in tackling paramilitary terrorism and for his patience over the political talks. May I put to him the comments on BBC television this week of the commanding officer of bloody Sunday, Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, who said that the present Government's policies and those of their predecessors had failed completely? Is there not a case for an entirely new agenda of constitutional talks, involving all elected representatives of both north and south, to agree a solution to this crisis? Otherwise we shall have 23 more years of killing and destruction.

Mr. Brooke: I am conscious how, whenever we come to one of these sad anniversaries in Northern Ireland, those who have participated in Northern Ireland affairs in the past make their contributions to the current debate. As for talks, the party leaders and I issued a statement earlier this week. I think that there is hope and expectation on the part of us all that we shall be able to come back into talks after the general election.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that to deal with military conflicts in the Province British troops must be able to deal with the Irish Republican Army in a professional, military way, without their hands being tied behind their backs for political reasons? Does he further agree that people in the Province deserve equally high standards of security and protection from terrorism as those who live on the mainland?

Mr. Brooke: I have already remarked on the phrase "military conflict". As to my hon. Friend's comment that the security forces should be allowed to operate without constraint from political considerations, I can give a categorical assurance that no such restraint for political reasons will be imposed. The security forces will, however, always operate under the rule of the law.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State remember that in Northern Ireland Question Time on 12 December he and I shared a concern about the build-up of munitions and arms as far south as Limerick for trans-shipment to


Northern Ireland, as unfortunately happened? Does he feel that he might try to persuade Mr. Collins at their next meeting to devote a little more time to the containment of that particular problem rather than wasting it on demands that a policeman accompany every Army patrol in Northern Ireland, presumably to ensure that the Special Air Services remember to say "please" and "thank you" to any civilian they may encounter?

Mr. Brooke: I had the opportunity to discuss the matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised at the conference this week. The Minister of Justice, who of course accompanies the Minister for Foreign Affairs to these conferences, is fully seized—as is the Commissioner of the Garda—of the necessity to identify the whereabouts of the arsenal because of its profound value to the IRA.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the current security situation in Northern Ireland illustrates the irresponsibility of those who oppose the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act?

Mr. Brooke: I have said before from the Dispatch. Box that the attitude of other parties in the House to that Act is a matter for them rather than for me.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that after the election and in the event of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) forming a Government, the right hon. Gentleman will support that Government in seeking to revive the talks on the basis of the three strands that have been the basis of his patient talks over the past two years? At the conclusion of the Nelson case, will the Secretary of State make a statement to the House about the supremacy of the rule of law in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman's pronunciation, but in my day I fought the constituency of Islwyn which is now represented by the Leader of the Opposition, and I can tell him that it is pronounced "Issloin". In the unlikely event of an alternative Administration being returned to power and seeking to get talks started, on the basis of my experience over the past two years I wish the hon. Gentleman well. In response to the hon. Gentleman's second question, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, made it perfectly clear that we will not make any comment whatever on that case while it is proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q 1. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been having important discussions today with President Yeltsin, who is on his first visit abroad as President of an independent Russia. My right hon. Friend will be meeting President Bush this evening after my right hon. Friend's arrival in New York to chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Jones: I am sorry that I so rattled the Prime Minister with my question at the previous Prime Minister's Question Time that he has not come to the House today. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies spring budget report shows that Government borrowing is likely to reach £20 billion next year, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have reneged on their promises to balance the books?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the Budget statement on matters relating to his question. As is absolutely clear, we have made our spending plans public. They are set out in detail and we have indicated how they are paid for. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear on Tuesday. I note that the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers says:
Labour, if elected, would have little scope for increased spending in the early years unless it were willing to increase taxes by more than it has indicated.
The country now says, "And how!"

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that too often we lose sight of the fact that the national health service was born as a result of co-operation between three parties? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the founders of the health service would be horrified at the resistance to the reforms so ably carried out by the Government for the benefit of patients throughout the country?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree. It is clear that we have not only substantially increased expenditure on the national health service but that we are the only party proposing credible reforms, the results of which are already showing. I assume that that is why a consultant, who is the nephew of a distinguished former socialist in the House, said yesterday:
I do not believe the health service would be safe in Labour's hands.

Mr. Hattersley: When the Prime Minister said on Tuesday that if the Conservatives were re-elected they would not increase VAT, was he giving the House and the country a categorical assurance?

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear on Tuesday.

Mr. Hattersley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister also made the position categorically clear on 6 April, when he said:
No honest Government could give a categorical assurance that they would not increase VAT. No Government ever has, and no Government ever will.
Was the Prime Minister telling the truth last Tuesday or
last April?

Mr. MacGregor: What my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday is:
There will be no VAT increase …we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]
That is absolutely clear, and it is in clear contrast to the position of the Labour party, which maintains its high
spending policies and is all over the place in deciding how to finance them.

Mr. Hattersley: It is absolutely clear that the Leader of the House has either no authority or insufficient courage to
say whether that promise was categorical or whether it was


what the country believes it to have been—evidence of a Prime Minister panicked into making a promise that he has no intention of keeping. Is not the truth about Tory policy on VAT revealed in the party's latest campaign document—that the way to raise taxes is "Wait until they spend the money as that is the right moment to tax them"?

Mr. MacGregor: I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear, as we have done on many occasions. It is also clear that in the last two weeks the whole country, as it heard different voices and different noises, has wondered who is speaking for the Labour party. Indeed, on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman was proposing that Labour's recession package should be introduced after the recession had ended.

Mr. Dykes: Has my hon. Friend noticed that in recent weeks, as the public have been able to assess our present policies and our future policy offerings, there has been a very sharp and noticeable increase in our opinion poll ratings? That is not just a coincidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opinion poll improvement in the past few weeks reflects not only our excellent policy range but the fact that the election is getting closer and the best is yet to come?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that as we unfold our positive policies over the next few weeks, and as the electorate sees more and more of what Labour is offering—or not offering—what my hon. Friend has suggested will come about.

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McAvoy: The Cabinet is split from top to bottom over the Prime Minister's policy of using Common Market grants for tax cuts instead of for the provision of help to deprived areas. Will the Leader of the House confirm the report in yesterday's Financial Times that the rules for allocating this money were changed in 1988 with the approval of the Government, and will he give an immediate assurance that the new rules will be obeyed? Why should Britain's areas of highest unemployment suffer because of Tory party internal divisions?

Mr. MacGregor: There are no internal Tory party divisions. The position on the particular issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that for some years now we have pursued the same policy that the money has been, in the formula applied, additional and is reflected in higher public spending plans, and that it is for the Commissioner to honour the pledge that we have had for years past.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend noticed in the past few days the widespread support for our plans to seek better-quality services from councils? Has he noticed that much advice has been given to us on how that should be done? Some of the advice is bizarre. Will he confirm that he will reject advice to use as a role model councils such as Lambeth, Liverpool, Hackney and Southwark—in other words, councils which have high borrowing, rotten services and high community charges and which have lost control of their housing stock, and all of which are run by the Labour party?

Mr. MacGregor: It is clear that nearly all of the 10 worst councils in terms of rent collection and houses left empty are Labour controlled. It is also clear that many of the high-spending authorities are Labour. The country will draw its own conclusion that under a Labour Administration there are great inefficiencies, high spending and high taxation.

Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and given the obvious confusion among Ministers about the implications of their electoral promises for the future level of value added tax, can the Leader of the House conjure up the actual figure for value added tax when his Government came to office in June 1979, and the level now as they go out of office?

Mr. MacGregor: We have, of course, in addition undertaken a considerable change—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I intend to answer. We have undertaken a considerable change from direct to indirect taxes, which is absolutely right because it enables many more people to spend their money as they wish. That is the policy which we have pursued consistently, with the result that direct taxation has come down substantially. However, we did not have the very high rates on many goods such as television sets, which are described as luxury goods but are essentials for many people—rates which we inherited and which I understand that the Labour party would consider again.

May Day

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for the future of the May day bank holiday.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
The Government have no plans to change the present public holiday arrangements, although we shall continue to keep the situation under review.

Mr. Field: Why do we not throw off this hangover of socialism and instead celebrate a free enterprise day, a British export day or, better still, a low taxation day? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who think that high taxation is the answer to recession are about to try to convince the electorate that suffocation is a form of first aid?

Mr. MacGregor: On the question about May day being a bank holiday, I can give my hon. Friend some comfort. Although I know that my hon. Friend is interested in switching it to the autumn, we have no plans to do that because there are different views about it. I think that he will agree nevertheless that on May day, instead of celebrating socialism, we now celebrate the end of socialism.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Lord President of the Council, as a fellow Scot, tell me whether he has had the opportunity to study in depth the implications of the ICM opinion poll?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sadly, the question is about May day.

Engagements

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bellingham: Will the Leader of the House find time today to plan a journey from south Norfolk to north-west Norfolk to look at the local health services? He is welcome to bring with him Sir Roy Griffiths. He will see that a number of general practitioner practices have become fundholders, that a local NHS trust has already reduced waiting lists by 1,200 in the last year, and that a district authority is about to merge with a neighbour to give itself more clout. Are not those the results of Tory policies working for the benefit of patients?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. The same is happening in west Norfolk, as well as throughout the country. As a result of the reforms, already in a very short period we see improved services, shortened waiting lists, and so on. Interestingly, we are also seeing increasing support for the reforms from the medical profession itself and increasing take-up of them.

Mr. Redmond: Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the request that he restore to Back Benchers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what the hilarity is about, but please carry on.

Mr. Redmond: —the right to examine Government legislation and that he stop the appalling use of the guillotine which stifles it?

Mr. MacGregor: We shall be discussing that matter in a short while. I shall make plain our position on today's business.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is evidence of the growing success of the Government's education reforms that this year 28,800 people have enrolled for teacher training courses—20 per cent. more than last year and the best figure for 15 years? Is that not in stark contrast with the cynical disregard for educational standards shown by those Labour Members who filibustered on the parents charter Bill last night?

Mr. MacGregor: Later today we shall be able to debate further the great improvement in standards that we are achieving as a result of our reforms. My hon. Friend draws attention to one of them. I am delighted with the considerable increase in the number coming forward for teacher training. It reflects the fact that we have considerably improved the salary prospects and career prospects of teachers as a result of all the steps that we have taken in recent years.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House confirm that although few people in Britain would expect the Prime Minister to match President Yeltsin bottle for bottle, they will find it odd that the Government insist on increasing or doubling Britain's nuclear fire power when both the Russians and the Americans see good reasons for cutting theirs?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and I want to make the position clear. We welcome the proposals to reduce the super-power arsenals. They are wonderful news for all of us. We must hope that the current plans are implemented. But let us be perfectly clear about the scale of what is involved. The present arsenal of the former Soviet republics is 27,000 warheads, and it will take them many years to implement the current proposals. Even at the end of that process, they will have thousands of nuclear weapons. Our deterrent involves one boat on patrol at all times with no more than 128 warheads. So the scale is very different. I believe that the whole country thinks that with the uncertainties in the world—in the middle east and elsewhere, as well as in the Soviet Union—and looking ahead to the next 10 years, it is essential that we maintain our minimum credible nuclear deterrent.

Natural Gas (Imports)

Mr. Frank Dobson(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the Government's decision to authorise further imports of natural gas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): It has been the Government's object to create the market conditions within which competition can work for the benefit of all participants, suppliers, transporters and consumers. Important progress has been made in Britain. The Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 and the Gas Act 1986 opened pipelines to competition on the basis of what is now called third-party access and provided for appropriate regulation by the Office of Gas Supply. Under the regulatory regime established when British Gas was privatised, steps taken in response to identified market problems have led over recent years to a growing number of companies supplying gas to industrial customers in competition with British Gas. Additional measures now being discussed will contribute to this process.
The United Kingdom has large reserves of gas on its continental shelf, and liberalisation of the market has provided a spur to their development. The Government support the European Commission's efforts to bring the benefits of liberalisation to the wider market of the Community and to remove barriers to competition and obstacles to trade. A market in which gas moves freely across frontiers and competes its way freely to final consumers provides the best assurance for all, including the emerging market economies of eastern Europe, the continued development of which will bring the environmental attractions of gas within reach of the widest public.
Until now, the United Kingdom has lacked the necessary gas transport links with the European market. I am pleased to say that several companies have told my Department that they would be interested in building a gas interconnector between the United Kingdom and the continent to enable UKCS gas to reach continental markets in competition with other gas suppliers to continental Europe. Six companies—British Gas, BP, Conoco, Elf, Norsk Hydro and Statoil—have now come together to conduct the first stage of a feasibility study on a gas interconnector between the United Kingdom and Europe.
At the suggestion of the companies, it was decided that the group would benefit from having an independent chairman with experience of the oil and gas business. Mr. Geoffrey H. Chipperfield, CB, former permanent secretary at the Department of Energy and currently permanent secretary and chief executive of the Property Services Agency, has accepted an invitation to chair the study, which is now under way. The Government believe that other companies will wish to participate in the full feasibility study when it is launched, and opportunities for this will be opened later in the year.
At the same time, two proposals for the import of Norwegian gas have been put to my Department. National Power proposes to contract a supply equivalent to the consumption of a single power station. Statoil also proposes to negotiate a supply of gas to an independent power generation project in Britain.
In addition to these developments on exports and imports, BP, Statoil and Norsk Hydro propose to establish a joint venture United Kingdom gas marketing company, which will work for increased gas competition in both the industrial and the power generation markets in Britain. I welcome this move.
These developments will make a significant contribution to the opening up of competition and gas trade. We are confident that United Kingdom gas suppliers will benefit considerably from the liberalisation of gas trade throughout Europe.

Mr. Dobson: This is another fine mess that the Government's shortsighted policies have got the country into. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Gentlemen who are moaning why Britain, of all countries, should have to import more natural gas. The Government have encouraged the dash for gas, which the privatised electricity companies want to burn in power stations. As a result, the demand for gas in this country now exceeds Britain's own natural gas supplies. Where there was abundance, the Government's policies have created shortage.
Will the Minister confirm that, on present plans by the electricity companies, the amount of gas to be burnt in power stations will be as great as that used in the whole of the rest of British industry, and that British industry will have to pay higher gas prices as a result?
Is it not true that gas prices for domestic customers have risen by no less than 14 per cent. in the past two years and will rise still further, because the power companies' demand is driving up the price of bulk supplies of gas and will continue to do so?
Will the Minister tell us how much these additional gas imports will add to the trade deficit? Is it not true that Britain already has a trade deficit in energy and that this decision will make that deficit worse? I hope that the Minister will not quote his Secretary of State's totally misleading statistics in his recent press release, pretending that we have an energy surplus.
Is it not true that, as a result of the Government's policies and the self-same privatised generating companies that want to import natural gas, coal imports last year hit record levels, and that the generating companies plan even more coal imports?
Will the Minister confirm that his Secretary of State recently advocated dependence in future on gas supplies not just from Norway but from the Gulf, the former Soviet Union and Algeria? If so, what price does he give for security of supply?
Finally, the Government keep knuckling under to the selfish demands of the privatised electricity companies. Is it not about time that the Government reminded the bosses of those companies that they should consider the long-term interests of the people of this country instead of just lining their own pockets? If this dying Tory Government will not tell them, the incoming Labour Government will.

Mr. Moynihan: I am surprised by that tirade from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), not least because the pipeline through which the gas will be imported is the Frigg line, which resulted from the Frigg treaty, negotiated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was then Secretary of State for Energy. Also, the production of the Frigg field—which


the right hon. Member for Chesterfield signed for—increased from nothing to a plateau of nearly 10 billion cu m of Norwegian gas per year under the last Labour Government, without any concern for export potential. If one adds together all the gas that we are discussing, the imports could total less than half of the amount which resulted from the Labour Government's desire and drive for imported Norwegian gas. So the House should get that into perspective.
The important thing is that we are announcing opportunities for a highly competitive United Kingdom gas industry to export in markets which are sufficiently attractive to warrant great interest from a large number of companies, and key companies have come forward to undertake a feasibility study. They will be in a position to win long-term contracts when the export link—the interconnector—is built. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was also wrong about the trade deficit in energy, as there is a surplus.
In conclusion, I have this answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions—our objective, if it is to be in the interests of consumers, must be to work towards trade in gas in a genuine free market throughout Europe. We are confident that United Kingdom suppliers will benefit considerably from the liberalisation of the gas trade throughout Europe. Ultimately and most importantly, not only suppliers will benefit, but consumers.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is a private notice question and not a statement, although it sounded a little like one. I shall allow questions to continue until 3.55 pm; then we must move on to Business Questions.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my hon. Friends will welcome his statement because the importation of gas will allow more competition in the electricity supply industry and will be good for the environment, because gas produces less carbon dioxide than coal when burned for electricity generation?. Does he recall that, not so long ago, British Gas limited the amount of gas available by contract pricing so that that premium fuel could be conserved? Does he therefore accept that there is a danger in importing more gas—or, even worse, exporting more—
that that valuable chemical may be frittered away in burning rather than being kept as the premium fuel that it truly is?

Mr. Moynihan: On my hon. Friend's first point, it is important to encourage competition in generation. Both the entry and prospect of independent entrants into the market is important to ensure the maximum downward pressure on generating prices. My hon. Friend's question about the environmental impact of gas and the greater use of gas-fired generation is important. The combined cycle gas turbine is a major step forward for the environment. The technology used by the industry is important not merely in terms of high thermal efficiencies but because there are important environmental advantages—the turbines emit no sulphur, have lower emissions of NOx and CO2 than coal-fired power stations and their introduction at the expense of old and inefficient plant will result in greater energy efficiency. It is important for the

House to bear in mind the environmental impact of using gas for electricity generation, as well as the energy efficiency which I mentioned.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that we welcome the liberalisation of the gas market? We think that there should be rapid progress towards a European gas grid, and that we should allow access across frontiers, without hindrance, as soon as possible, including building the interconnector. I hope that he recognises the dangers. First, we must ensure that more access to gas does not mean more use of it, and we should therefore ensure that energy efficiency and conservation are Government priorities. Secondly, the new structure should be honestly and truly competitive and the protected position of British Gas should be broken up into a real competitive market and not defended. Thirdly, we should have a strategy for energy—of which this is a part—and no behind-the-door deals. With those assurances, we will be supportive.

Mr. Moynihan: I agree with all three points—and we need to break up monopolies on the continent as well.

Sir John Hannam: In the wake of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy about setting up a new United Kingdom joint venture gas marketing company, will my hon. Friend confirm that, initially, that company will concentrate on bringing gas from the United Kingdom continental shelf to our home market?

Mr. Moynihan: That is correct.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that today's announcement about the import of gas is bound to cause confusion as the country knows that we are more than self-sufficient in indigenous sources of energy? Does he agree that, as gas prices will increase by about 50 per cent. in the next five or six years, the deal is not a good one for consumers? The country knows that we import 20 million or 30 million tonnes of coal and we are making miners redundant. Gas-fired power stations will result in electricity employees in power stations being made redundant. Therefore, this is not good news. Is it not time that the Government thought out an energy strategy?

Mr. Moynihan: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I agree that an energy strategy is important. That is what we are proposing. What I have mentioned today is part and parcel of that strategy. The liberalisation programme of the European Commission, which we fully support, and the increased competition will benefit consumers in United Kingdom markets. The coal industry is well aware of the competition that it faces for a share of the electricity markets. That is why British Coal has made significant strides towards reducing costs and more than doubled productivity since the 1984–85 National Union of Mineworkers' strike.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that the first Government to import
gas—liquefied petroleum gas propane, which was kept in Britain at the largest refrigerated storage in Europe—was the Labour Government in 1968? They encouraged those imports to take the place of coal, which resulted in miners within the Eastern gas board producing less. I am more


interested in the importation of gas than its exportation in order that we may retain our reserves in the North sea and in Britain generally.

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the role of the Labour party in the past. That point was reinforced in relation to importation when the Frigg treaty was negotiated. When talking about proposed imports this afternoon, we are not talking about a new pipeline, but we are aware that we shall need to renegotiate the treaty and possibly amend it. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today written to the Norwegian Petroleum and Energy Minister stating the Government's readiness to facilitate the imports and undertake negotiations. I believe that that will be done in a spirit of close co-operation with the Norwegian Government.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister confirm that any export pipeline will qualify for relief against petroleum revenue tax in the same way as the central area transmission system that takes gas from Aberdeen to Teesside to generate cheap electricity? Will the Minister confirm that more than £100 million in tax relief is involved in the CATS scheme? Can he think of any other country in Europe, bar Scotland, that is paying international oil companies to take away its most valuable natural resource?

Mr. Moynihan: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's first point in writing so that I may answer it in detail. He asked about the fiscal regime as it applies to exports. There are details on that within the Finance Bill. The petroleum revenue tax is important, as is the gas levy. The gas levy is paid by British Gas in respect of fields contracted to it before 1975, which are not liable to petroleum revenue tax, and so will not affect the proposed export. As I said, I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman's specific points later.

Sir Trevor Skeet: While welcoming the Government's proposals, may I ask the Minister whether they will lead to the unlocking of many untapped gas wells in the North sea, both on our side and on the Norwegian side? Will there be a reduction in the high price of industrial gas in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Moynihan: Increased competition will have a beneficial effect on the pricing of gas for the United Kingdom industrial sector. There is no doubt that a liberalisation of the marketplace, with a larger marketplace, will be considered attractive by those making long-term investment decisions in the gas sector, particularly in the southern basin. Access to an interconnector with Europe will play an important part in future marketing strategies, so the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks is correct.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Has the Minister conducted an exercise into the proposals using the principles of least cost planning? Rather than build pipelines to Norway and construct power stations that burn gas inefficiently, wasting half the energy value of gas, would it not be wiser to invest that money in energy-efficient ways such as insulating houses and replacing old domestic boilers with new and efficient condensing boilers?

Mr. Moynihan: There is no intention of building new pipelines to Norway.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is the Minister aware that there are several coal-fired power stations in my constituency and that the cost of using domestic coal adds about £1 per week on average to every domestic bill for electricity in this country, according to House of Commons Library figures, compared with the cost of using coal at world prices? Has he any idea how much more money all of my constituents will save on their electricity bills when we begin the major switch from coal to gas?

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend will be aware that the new contracts for coal will be at competitive prices. I believe that the coal industry is well positioned to negotiate effectively and on merit as a result of the substantial improvements in productivity that have occurred. Coal will continue to have an important share in the British power sector for many years to come, but it will do so on merit.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the justification for using scarce chemical feedstock in power stations?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are plentiful supplies of gas for the United Kingdom —[Interruption.] We are finding more per annum than we are using. In the context of Norway, Algeria and the Soviet Union, there are ample supplies which will make an important contribution to power generation for many decades to come. There is no doubt that, when assessing it in competition with other fuel sources, the environmental benefits must be given serious consideration, and we have obviously done that.

Mr. Peter Rost: Does the Minister accept that large energy users who have been handicapped by a monopoly supplier for far too long will welcome his important anouncement? Will he further accept that, if we do not liberalise the market and connect to the European grid, our competitor countries in Europe will, before long, benefit from substantially increased quantities of cheaper Russian gas to which we shall not have access?

Mr. Moynihan: I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Minister aware that while those countries with which he has been dealing and to which he has referred may be willing to trade with Britain, they will wonder how the Government could have engaged in massive additional import costs, having already created an almost obscene level of trade deficit over the last decade? Does he not appreciate that while Ministers repeatedly profess their concern and interest in the coal industry, his announcement will be seen as yet another blow to our coalfield areas and another cause of loss of jobs, with disastrous effects on communities who deserve more consideration than they have been shown by the Conservatives?

Mr. Moynihan: I totally disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the effect of coal. How can he talk about massive additional import costs when we are talking about two contracts which together represent well under 50 per cent. of what the last Labour Government negotiated in terms of imports? Indeed, at that time that Government did not even address the export opportunities


which, in terms of trade, could be far more significant in the long run. It is rich for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not to face up to the facts of the matter, which I have described to the House.

Mr. Richard Alexander: While accepting that we should not have artificial restraints on any fuel and should not artificially support one fuel as against another, will the Minister bear in mind, following the question from the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), that our coal industry is trading in the markets and that we should be careful before we give additional support to a fuel which will come in and compete with a fuel that we already have?

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend would be the first to accept that the future size of the coal industry will depend on the amount of business that it manages to secure with the generators. That in turn will depend on the industry's ability to reduce unit costs and improve productivity. British Coal has already made considerable progress in productivity, which is more than double pre-strike levels. It is committed to securing further substantial improvement. That is the best way forward for coal.

Mr. Frank Doran: Will the Minister confirm that, when he talks about the export pipeline, he is talking about a study? Many studies have been undertaken in the past; no pipeline has been connected to the European mainland before, because it would have been uneconomic. The Minister has simply attempted some window dressing to make today's announcement about imports appear more acceptable. It is much more likely that no such pipeline will ever be built.
What consideration has the Minister given to the position of our indigenous gas producers? What has he to say to the many thousands who work in the gas industry in such places as Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, the north-west and Aberdeen, who will be thinking about the implications of today's announcement for coal industry jobs, and wondering what will happen to their own jobs now that the Government have opened the door to massive imports?
What has the Minister to say about the position of the 80 million gas consumers in this country? Today's decision will invitably lead to much higher gas prices.

Mr. Moynihan: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's view about the prospect for prices. Consumers will undoubtedly benefit from the liberalisation of the United Kingdom and European markets: they will warmly welcome the export opportunities, and, if the outlet comes to fruition—which I certainly hope will happen—it will doubtless have a significant impact on future investment and jobs in the oil and gas sector.
Companies came to us because they saw the commercial opportunities. Six companies expressed interest to the Department, and were keen to get the study under way. There will be opportunities for other companies to join in the study later. [Interruption.] The companies are concerned first and foremost with the feasibility study, not—as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggests from a sedentary position—for the sake of imports, but for the sake of export opportunities in a liberalised market.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Motions on the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order and the African Development Fund (Sixth Replenishment) Order.
TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Motions on the English revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
There will be a debate on motions to approve the supplementary estimate 1991–92 relating to the budget of the European Communities, Class XX vote 1, (House of Commons Paper 182) and the estimates 1992–93 (vote on account) (House of Commons Paper 183).
WEDNESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.
Proceedings on the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill.
Motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports: details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (4th allotted day).
There will be a debate described as "Government responsibility for the continuing recession in British industries" on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Offshore Safety Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Transport and Works Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 5 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Committee A, document No. 9997/91, relating to Common Market organisation and milk products; Committee B, document No. 6748/91, relating to tobacco products.
[Tuesday 4 February
English revenue support grant reports

1. Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1992–93
2. Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) (No. 2) Report (England)
3. The Population Report (England) (No. 3)
4. The Special Grant Report (No. 3)

Wednesday 5 February
Welsh revenue support grant reports

1. Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1992–93 (HC 151)
2. Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 3) (HC 152)
3. Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 3) (HC 153)

Wednesday 5 February
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community document
9997/91 Whole Milk Marketing
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 24-vii ( 1991–92)
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community document
6748/91 Advertising Tobacco Products
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 29-xxix (1990–91), HC 24-i (1991–92) and HC 24-iv (1991–92)]

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House accept that, in spite of his panic about business last night and his subsequent changes, he has made an important decision in saving the Opposition's Supply day for next Thursday? Will he assure us that the Government will not erode that Opposition time by allowing statements before it, as has happened on previous Supply days? Is it not important to preserve that time so that the House may have the opportunity to debate the Government's policies on industry over the past 13 years, which have, to quote the Confederation of British Industry report, led not only to no recovery in the second half of 1991 but to continuing falls in employment, investment and output? It is important, in the approach to the general election, that, even if the Government will not provide time to debate their record, the Opposition have the opportunity to do so.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the comments in The Times today about the Government's feeble proposals for the future government of London and about the mean and spiteful decision taken, admittedly under a previous Prime Minister, to abolish the Greater London council. Is there not now a wide consensus for the re-establishment of an elected authority for London? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Given what The Times has said, should not we have an opportunity, in Government time, to debate the future of London, its government and economy?

Mr. MacGregor: There was no panic reaction last night; there was a considered and ordered response to the situation that we faced, and I hope to say something more about that in a moment.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Opposition Supply day next Thursday. I am responsive to the need to find time for Supply days. One of the reasons why I was so concerned last night at the way things were going was that at one time I thought that we might not have time for a Supply day next week. I understand the hon. Gentleman's position, and I have been happy to meet his wishes on this.
As for a statement, I can only say what I have said before, which is that I cannot predict what matters will arise, but I have noted what he has said.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a CBI report, but I could quote large tracts of CBI reports that make it clear that it believes that the British economy has become much more competitive, that manufacturing industry has greatly improved in performance, that exports are well up, and that the policies that it wants to continue into the 1990s are those which we have been pursuing rather than those of the Labour party. However, I shall not pursue that, because I am anxious to move on rapidly to the next debate to allow the maximum time for it. I hope that the debate on the guillotine motion will be short, so that we can get on to the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman will have sensed from the reaction to his comments on the government of London that he is

far from right when he says that there is a consensus about the abolition of the GLC. That move was widely welcomed. We would welcome a debate on London, but, in view of the pressures on the timetable, I do not think that it is likely to be in the near future.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me make a special plea to the House. Will hon. Members keep away from electioneering matters and deal with the business for next week? As I understand it, what happened last night was the result of lack of time, and if the guillotine motion is passed, the debate tonight will be concluded at 10 o'clock. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will ask questions about the business for next week.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that we spend a large amount of time discussing coal in our debates on energy issues. May we have an early debate on other forms of energy, particularly oil, gas and nuclear power? My right hon. Friend will know that my constituency has the largest onshore field producing those products. Can we debate the implications of the statement made earlier today for the export by rail of gas from my constituency, and whether that can be traded on the European market?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's interest, but it is unlikely that I shall be able to find Government time to discuss that issue in the near future. However, he might be able to find time himself to do so.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Having made up my mind about the difference between May day and St. Andrew's day, may I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that agreement has been reached about the meetings of the subject days for the Scottish Grand Committee? Is it the case that there will be one full day in Edinburgh and two half days in London? Against the background of constitutional trauma and clamour for change in Scotland, does it not seem ridiculous that not all the Scottish Grand Committee meetings are to be held in Scotland so that people can, rightly, hear what we all have to say?

Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm that agreement has been reached on the discussions to take place in the Scottish Grand Committee. I am pleased about that, because it is important that the issues are fully debated. So much of the debate has until now been somewhat unrealistic, and I am anxious to ensure that the issues are properly debated on a realistic basis within the Scottish Grand Committee.
I confirm that one day will be spent in Edinburgh, as I understand it, and two half days here. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that the fact that some issues are debated here does not mean that they are not heavily reported in Scotland. There has been an endeavour to reach an agreement which, I hope, will be acceptable to all involved. The important point is that the debates will take place.

Mr. Michael Brown: Is not the way round the problem which was drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) to persuade the Opposition to change next Thursday's debate to a debate on the private notice question that they tabled today? They would then have the opportunity to hear about the success of


National Power and PowerGen in my constituency, which are efficiently building two combined cycle gas turbine power stations to ensure that there is no damage to the environment and that the customer gets cheap electricity.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I hope that if he and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) catch your eye, Mr Speaker, they will raise that issue and elaborate on it during the debate next Thursday.

Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Leader of the House consider setting a time for the House to discuss the crises of student grants and student accommodation, especially as they affect polytechnics, such as the polytechnic of Wales, which are now seeking university status and where continual funding crises often mean that student accommodation is being dumped on the local authority as a perennial problem?

Mr. MacGregor: Clearly it would be wrong for me to go into that issue now. I cannot promise a general debate on that subject, but it might be relevant when the Further and Higher Education Bill reaches the Floor of the House. I shall reflect on that, but that seems to be the nearest opportunity.

Sir Peter Hordern: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will make time for the Friendly Societies Bill?

Mr. MacGregor: That was certainly in my mind when I was considering the issue that faced the House last night, because, as I shall elaborate in a moment during the debate on the timetable motion, I take many issues into account when working out the House's business. As I have told the many hon. Members and hon. Friends who have written to me about it, we are making good progress on the drafting of the Bill and I certainly hope to be able to introduce it this Session, but it depends on the other pressures on the timetable.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Leader of the House aware that in Scotland—in Faslane and Coulport—men in a private security company are breaking every rule in the book? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement about my constituents and others who have been asked to work more than 10 hours, 20 hours, 30 hours or 40 hours in a row to guard national security and being paid £1.85 an hour for that terrible task? I ask for the Secretary of State to make an urgent statement, because many of our constituents are concerned.

Mr. MacGregor: I doubt whether it will be possible for a statement to be made on that issue next week. The hon. Gentleman has already heard that I am under pressure to ensure that there are no statements on certain days, but I shall draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the Opposition are clearly running scared on health, will my right hon. Friend find Government time to stage a debate on health care? Is he aware that in Cannock, where Mrs. Nye Bevan, otherwise known as Jennie Lee, was the Member of Parliament for 25 years, doctors are delighted at the way in which our reforms are working out? Such a debate would enable me to draw to the attention of the

House the fact that in Cannock we have a brand new £22 million NHS hospital which had been promised for 50 years but which was delivered by a Tory Government.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes several good points. I would like to be able to find time for a debate to enable him and my other hon. Friends to elaborate those points. I agree that there is no doubt about the increasing support in the medical profession for our reforms, and the growing recognition of the big increases in capital spending that we have undertaken. I hope that my hon. Friend will find time on many other occasions, not just in such debates, to make those points.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the horrendous and continuing rise in unemployment in the east midlands in general, and in the city of Leicester in particular? Is the Leader of the House aware that, during 1991, unemployment in my constituency rose by 39 per cent., and that it is continuing to rise? Should not that terrible hardship inflicted so unnecessarily on so many people be discussed in the House?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not noticed that we have debated employment issues a great deal in the past few weeks and months—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Unemployment."] We have debated employment and unemployment. It has been said several times that we have one of the highest rates of employment in the European Community, and that Labour policies would greatly exacerbate unemployment. The issue has already often been raised in the House.

Mr. John Browne: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 585?
[That this House is increasingly aware of how it was misled, and indeed used, as part of a finely calculated and deliberate injustice perpetrated for party political reasons against the honourable Member for Winchester and his constituents on 7th March 1990, by senior Government Ministers and of the abuse of the whipping system on that day to influence the vote of the House whilst sitting in judgment over one of its honourable Members; notes that of the Government Ministers directly involved, namely the Right honourable Members for Surrey East, Mole Valley and Mid Sussex one was a Queen's Counsel and a past Foreign Secretary in charge of MI6 and another, as Home Secretary, is now in charge of MI5; is deeply concerned that if such Ministers, deemed fit to control the secret services of the Crown, can take such blatantly discriminatory and unjust action against a loyal colleague, then no citizen of this land is safe under the law; believes that continued delay by Her Majesty's Government in the face of this obvious case will be seen by the general public either as a cover up or as condoning the gross misconduct of the senior Ministers involved; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to act swiftly, before the election, either to bring this matter urgently before the Committee of Privileges or to allow the honourable Member for Winchester to present his case before Parliament in Government time before further injustice is done in this or any future case.]
I also draw to his attention early-day motions 115, 121 —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one early-day motion may be drawn attention to.

Mr. Browne: It is clear that a great and quite deliberate injustice was perpetrated by abusing the privileges and procedures of the House. I first gave notice of that injustice almost a year ago. If the Government, knowing of the case, and of that involving the late Lord Boothby, feel that the people involved are innocent, why does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House continue to resist the idea of bringing a motion before the House so that the matter could be explained, rather than running the risk that every right hon. and hon. Member remains exposed to the same injustice? Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on the subject, as a matter of urgency?

Mr. MacGregor: No, because the matter was fully debated on a previous occasion. I have nothing to add at present.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking the Minister responsible for industry in Scotland to make a statement next week about the way in which regional development arrangements disadvantage areas such as mine, which have no assisted area status? Is he aware that a proposed Sweater Shop factory which would have created 200 new jobs was diverted from Hawick to the west coast of Scotland simply because of the availability of regional assistance, which is not available in south-east Scotland? The situation is serious, and it is about time that the Government made a statement and reviewed the situation as a matter of urgency.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that a statement would be appropriate. I recall, when I was at the Department of Trade and Industry examining the issue, that areas without development area status were worried about the shift of jobs to areas with such status. That is one of the reasons why we rationalised development area status.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth)? Every reasonable person understands that our reforms are having a beneficial effect on the national health service. Such a debate would give us a chance to consider the statement by Nye Bevan's nephew that the NHS would not be safe in the Labour party's hands.

Mr. MacGregor: Many people have noticed that statement, which comes from someone with considerable practical working experience of the health service, who understands the relevance of the reforms. I have noticed the understandable desire of many of my hon. Friends to debate the health service so that we can explain more of the benefits of our period in office. I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement next week about cold weather payments? Is he aware that in Bradford, for instance, some pensioners receive the £6 that is made available while others do not? Even people living in the same street are being treated differently, with those on one side of the street receiving the payment and those on the other side being denied it. Will he investigate urgently that great injustice and grievance, and ensure that proper arrangements are made so that everyone who is eligible receives the payment promptly?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the fact that we introduced the cold weather payments system and that, in the light of experience, we have improved them considerably. As a result, because of the temperatures in the eligible areas, groups such as the elderly and disabled who receive income support have received automatically a payment of £6. So far this year, that has resulted in the expenditure of approximately £19 million, so the system is clearly operating. If the hon. Gentleman has difficulties in relation to particular constituents, I suggest that he writes in the normal way to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Keith Raffan: In view of the fact that the Scottish Grand Committee is to debate the constitutional question and the implications of devolution, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Welsh Grand Committee will be given a similar opportunity to discuss those matters as they relate to Wales?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot assure my hon. Friend that those matters can be debated in the same way as they are being debated in the Scottish Grand Committee. If he wishes to raise particular points, I am sure that he will find opportunities to do so.

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House please find time next week to debate the question of RECHAR? We have had a series of unsatisfactory ministerial statements on RECHAR and it is clear that the Government are cheating some areas of money that is rightly theirs. It is important that the matter be brought before the House so that we can examine it closely and scrupulously.

Mr. MacGregor: I disagree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman's charge. The responsibility now lies with the Commissioner.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the impersonation of Conservative Members to the press for political purposes? Does he agree that it is a most serious matter?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that I shall need further notice of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have noticed early-day motion 51 asking for a posthumous pardon for Derek Bentley. It has been signed by 191 hon. Members of all parties throughout the United Kingdom.
[That this House welcomes the book To Encourage the Others by David A. Yallop, calling for an independent public inquiry into the hanging of Derek Bentley in 1952; requests the Home Secretary to set up the inquiry as a matter of urgency; hopes that such a request will lead to a posthumous pardon; and feels that this will end a grave miscarriage of justice which leaves a permanent blot on the British judicial system—the hanging of an innocent man.]
Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to speed up the police inquiry so that we can debate the matter in the House?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will welcome the opportunity to debate Scotland's


constitution in the Scottish Grand Committee. I am sure that he realises that constitutional matters are clearly important to the House, the Union and the unitary Parliament. As there has been a decline in the support for an assembly with legislative and tax-raising powers in Scotland and a rise in demands for independence, is it not about time that the House debated fully what socialist nationalism really means?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I notice that the polls to which reference has been made have shown declining support for an assembly with tax-raising powers. A poll in an Aberdeen newspaper today shows that that support has fallen even further. I suspect that that is a result of the fact that a spotlight has now been put on some of the implications of that proposal, which is why I am keen to have a wider debate on other aspects of the question. I also recognise that, because of the major constitutional matters involved, not only Scottish but many English Members of Parliament would wish to participate in that debate. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request, but, for the moment, the right step is the one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Leader of the House has mentioned a debate next Wednesday in European Standing Committee B on tobacco products. Will he confirm that this is a proposal to ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship? Will he tell the House when the Government are likely to table the motion for that debate? Is he aware that the Select Committee on European Legislation has issued a number of reports on this matter, the latest of which is published today, contains the summarised views of 40 organisations concerned and will be available in the Vote Office at once as a separate document?

Mr. MacGregor: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said about the document now available. I cannot immediately confirm to him when the motion will be tabled, but, as he knows, we always endeavour to get that done as quickly as possible.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend has said that next week a European Standing Committee will consider milk and milk products. Will he find another opportunity for the House to debate agriculture and farm incomes, bearing in mind the continuing uncertainty of the GATT negotiations and EC reform proposals? Is this not a matter of widespread concern in which positive Government policies contrast sharply with the absence of any worthwhile strategy among the parties on the Opposition Benches?

Mr. MacGregor: We had a debate before Christmas on these matters. As a former Minister of Agriculture, I am keen to have them debated as often as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the difficulties is still the uncertainty surrounding the GATT negotiations, and we hope that they will succeed very soon. That may be an appropriate time to have either a further statement or a debate in the House, when some of the points that my hon. Friend has made can be brought out.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the Leader of the House aware of the grave concern that is being expressed about the British merchant fleet, a concern that

is even expressed in the professional papers, particularly about bulk carriers, many of which have been described as rust buckets sailing the ocean or as disasters waiting to happen? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House on these matters so that the British merchant fleet can be debated here?

Mr. MacGregor: I very much doubt that a statement is appropriate next week, but I will draw the point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I am aware of the pressure on time, but can my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate the affairs of the Royal Life Insurance company, one of whose agents, a Mr. Kissane, has swindled about 500 people out of several thousand pounds each? Does he agree that a debate might bring pressure to bear on all concerned to come to a settlement as soon as possible and restore their life savings to a number of people?

Mr. MacGregor: I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says. Without knowing the details, I cannot comment on whether a debate would accelerate a solution of the problems. I cannot give Government time for a debate, but my hon. Friend might consider whether the opportunities available to him should be used to deal with the point that he has raised.

Mr. James Lamond: Next week the Government must give their response to a finding by the European Community, after a three-year investigation, that dumping of cotton and polyester yarn has been proved against Turkey, Brazil and Egypt. During the three years that this has taken to consider, 31 spinning mills have closed, with a loss of 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. Naturally, those who are employed in the industry and the employers are very anxious that we give a prompt and positive response to the proposals to stop the dumping, but when I telephoned the Minister's office this morning I was told that no response had so far been prepared. Will the Leader of the House ensure that this is treated as a matter of urgency because of the number of people whose jobs are involved?

Mr. MacGregor: I will discuss the point with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. David Sumberg: May we have a statement next week from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs so that hon. Members can tell him how pleased we are at his announcement today that from now on all electricial appliances must have moulded-on plugs? This will be widely welcomed, particularly by the disabled and the elderly, and the House should have a chance to give him the congratulations that are his due.

Mr. MacGregor: I know of my hon. Friend's involvement in this matter, and I am sure that a great deal of credit is due to him. I hope that we shall all do what he advises to make sure that the Government's position is widely known.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Leader of the House address the appalling plight of 62 non-haemophiliac patients, one of whom is a constituent of mine, who have contracted the HIV virus as a consequence of treatment in the national health service?
There seems to be appalling discrimination in that this small group of people do not receive any compensation while others do. May we have an urgent statement from Ministers before more of these tragically unfortunate people lose their lives?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the issue and sympathise with the plight of those who have been infected with HIV as a result of blood transfusions. I think that the matter has been debated in the House and considered. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the House decided not to support the principle of no-fault compensation for medical accidents. If the NHS is proved negligent in a court, it accepts its liability to pay damages.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I fear that it will not be possible to call all those hon. Members who wish to ask questions, because we must move to the guillotine motion by 4.30. I ask for brief questions, and I shall call as many hon. Members as I can in the remaining five minutes.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Did my right hon. Friend see the front pages of The Star and The Sun yesterday which expressed concern about the misuse of ecstasy in the north-west, and especially on Merseyside, where seven young people have died and where a drug centre is using Merseyside regional health authority funds to distribute a leaflet encouraging young people to take ecstasy, a class A drug? May we have time next week to debate this matter and express our concern?

Mr. MacGregor: I share my hon. Friend's concern. We should all be grateful to those two newspapers for highlighting the issue. I do not know whether we can have a debate on the matter, but I hope that it has now been clearly drawn to the attention of the public.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I again ask the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement next week on the proposed bridge to the Isle of Skye, the local planning inquiry for which is now under way? Not least among the problems are the difficulties that objectors encounter through not having public funding to enable them to present their views and have proper legal representation. Another difficulty is the absence of a published environmental impact assessment by the Scottish Office. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State to explain those matters?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure that a statement would be appropriate and, as the House realises, I am under great pressure about next week's business. We have a heavy programme. However, I will again draw the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Marlow: May we have a debate next week on whether the initiation of changes in the law with regard to membership rules for working men's clubs, a highly sensitive issue, should be invested in the unelected, unaccountable Commission for Racial Equality rather than in the House?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that we can have a debate on that matter next week, and my hon. Friend must find other ways to raise it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on regional policy? Would it not be quite improper for Volvo Bus to close a major bus plant in Workington, which has received much taxpayers' money in regional grants, and move to Irvine in Scotland and receive taxpayers' money in the form of regional assistance?

Mr. MacGregor: I recall that there are rules about regional development grants, but I do not know how they apply in this case. It seems to me that the point could be raised by the hon. Gentleman in next Thursday's debate.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House further consider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) about cold weather payments? In any debate about that matter, we would say that it is most unfortunate that the temperature has to drop to zero or below for seven consecutive days before any payment is made and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that such payment is made only to those on income support. It is deplorable that hundreds of thousands or more pensioners, many of them on the lowest possible income, are suffering in this cold weather and are not getting a penny.

Mr. MacGregor: Such schemes were not available during the period of office of the Labour Government. In addition, there have been very substantial improvements in income support and in social security arrangements generally.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be relevant, in next Thursday's debate, to raise the success of the policy of contracting out? Perhaps he has noticed that, in the latest redraft of the Labour party's policies on London, there seems to be acceptance of contracting out to private companies and, indeed, to the London boroughs. Surely those are the very things that the Labour party intends to try to replace.

Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend were to catch your eye next Thursday, Mr. Speaker, it would be highly relevant that he should make a contribution on these points.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will my right hon. Friend make time to debate the desirability or otherwise of regional assemblies with tax-raising powers? In the north-west—Stockport in particular—there is concern about how horrendous a regional assembly dominated by left-wing Manchester and militant Liverpool would be.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I pointed out earlier, the discussion of the constitutional position in Scotland—a debate that is about to take place in the Scottish Grand Committee—has much wider implications, involving, in respect of a number of issues, everyone in England and Wales. I hope that in that debate those implications will be made clear. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that those who are putting forward the idea of regional assemblies are doing so for the purpose of getting themselves out of a hole in their own policies and that there is absolutely no support in England for it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I dislike curtailing business questions, but I have managed to call those who were not called last week, and I shall do likewise next week.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we are not going to have a rash of points of order. If this is a genuine point of order, the hon. Gentleman may make it.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a genuine point of order relating to the drafting of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, which is to be taken next Wednesday. A problem arises when both Front Benches agree on something but others have doubts. I cannot complain about the Minister of State, Scottish Office, as he has been extremely courteous about the many queries that I have put to him. However, he said that he would take away clause 48, which is the same as section 77 of the Education Act 1944, and ask the parliamentary draftsmen to come up with a solution. Some of us think that this may be mission impossible. The crucial point for you, Mr. Speaker, is when we are going to see this key amendment. The whole attitude to the Bill will depend, first, on the amendment that is produced and, secondly, on whether we shall have time next week to consult vice-chancellors and others as to its acceptability to them. I wonder whether this matter could be raised.

Mr. Speaker: I have not been able to look at the amendments to the Bill, but I shall bear carefully in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: During the questions arising from last Tuesday's statement on trade union reform, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) bellowed from a sedentary position that I was sponsored by Lloyd's. As, for some reason, this statement was considered sufficiently significant not only to enter the Hansard record but also to be broadcast by the BBC in "Yesterday in Parliament", may I take this opportunity to put the record straight? Regrettably, Lloyd's has never considered it worth its while to sponsor me. Indeed, sadly—unaccountably perhaps—no one has ever considered it worth his while to sponsor me. Unlike the hon. Member for Workington, I am not sponsored by a union. As he has such a successful track record in securing sponsorship, perhaps he will put me in touch with any other generous sponsors that he knows of.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the fact that he is sponsored by his constituency.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to say his piece, perhaps the record should be put straight. I am sponsored, but, as you, Mr. Speaker, will know, I receive from my union no moneys—no personal remuneration, no out-of-pocket expenses. In the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) declares, under "Trades or Professions", that he is a member of Lloyd's

Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a sponsorship.

Mr. Oppenheim: I should like to make a point very briefly, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman does not know


the difference between being a name at Lloyd's, which these days, regrettably, generally costs one money, and being sponsored, which means receiving money, it is not surprising that he is on the Opposition Benches. Presumably the union that sponsors him expects something for the money that it pays.

Mr. Speaker: May I have a point of order that I can answer, please?

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this point of order as a genuine friend, not a special friend.
Question No. 4 to the Prime Minister today was a closed question about May day. Normally, following your reasonable practice, you call a Member from one side and then the other. Therefore, there was an opportunity for those of us who are interested in May day to ask a question. Reasonably, you chose to call the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). It quickly became obvious that the hon. Lady had made a mistake, which is easily done and has been done by most of us; she thought that it was an open question. On reflection, would it not have been fairer if you had then called another Opposition Member instead of letting our opportunity go, simply because the hon. Lady had made an understandable mistake? We were all punished because she had not read the Order Paper correctly.

Mr. Speaker: What might have been fair in the hon. Gentleman's view would have been unfair to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), whose question I just managed to reach. It is a question of balance.

Education (Schools) (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(2) Stand Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Order of proceedings

2. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Dilatory Motions

3. No dilatory Motions with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on the allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Private business

4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Question (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government he made to the Bill:
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

6.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the


provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion, made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

7. Nothing in this Order shall—
(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

8.—(1) Reference in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

9. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Education (Schools) Bill.

The whole House knows that we have a very full programme, involving both Houses and a great deal of work. Irrespective of when the election comes, the Session is bound to be shorter than usual, with no overspill in the autumn.
I have frequently made clear in business questions the difficult balancing act required in managing this Session's business in the House. Hon. Members on both sides press for additional time to debate subjects of great importance. Many days have to be allocated to requirements enjoined upon us by Standing Orders. The Opposition press, understandably, for their rightful allocation of Supply days. I always have to find time to accommodate additional legislation, and I have been trying to find time to enable us to deal with the Friendly Societies Bill.
Throughout the Session, I have tried to balance the requests with the need to get the Government's business through and to ensure that the House has adequate time to consider all legislation. It is my job as Leader of the House to manage business in the interests of the whole House, while at the same time endeavouring to get the legislation through in an orderly manner.
The Education (Schools) Bill had full discussion in Committee over 15 sittings and 36½ hours. In all previous discussions on this week's business, the Opposition, whether through their education spokesmen or through the usual channels, never asked for more than one day on Report and Third Reading, so we had no hint that there was any difficulty until we were well into the proceedings yesterday, when they made it clear that they had reservations. They did not seem to know what concessions they wanted or what their concern was. That is certainly how it seemed. Therefore, it seemed to me that it was in the interests of the whole House to make the change that I

made. It allows two full days to complete Report and Third Reading of the Bill instead of one day. I think that that is a generous response.
The timetable motion provides for ordered debate of the Bill and minimises the impact on other business this week and next. I repeat that we have now given two days to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. It is important to proceed without delay to the real matter of debate, which is the substance of the Bill. I hope that the House will deal briefly with the motion and that the whole House can resume the debate, as I believe it wishes.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that the motion is a simple guillotine motion for a closure of all the remaining new clauses and amendments by 10 o'clock. I am not making any comment on that. Can the Leader of the House give some assurance, both to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who has tabled amendments, and to me that amendments tabled by Back Benchers who are not spokesmen for their parties on these matters have a chance of being debated, and that there has not been a secret carve-up of the time between now and 10 o'clock which excludes the consideration of all the amendments on the amendment paper?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not aware of any carve-up. I am anxious to move straight on to the Bill so that as many amendments as possible can be considered and debated during the rest of the day. That is why I commend the motion to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: There was no need for the Leader of the House ever to have made his business statement last night or to have moved the guillotine motion today. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about a carve-up. The Leader of the House is responsible for another phrase ending in "up", but it is not "carve-up".
The origins of the dispute lie first and foremost in the fact that the Government have no mandate for the proposals in the legislation. None of the measures in the Bill was in the Conservative party's election manifesto. Secondly, some of the provisions of the Bill are plainly stupid. It is increasingly clear that even the Secretary of State for Education and Science cannot justify what he is doing in respect of the inspectorate.
Important issues are at stake which affect the future standard and quality of our children's education. It is perfectly legitimate for all Opposition parties—I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey—to want to examine those issues in detail. If the Conservative party had any stomach for the debate and any support for their arguments, the debate could have continued last night and could have been concluded by now. We could have continued with the important business of today and next week.
As some Conservative Members—I absolve the Leader of the House at least of this—have charged us with filibustering, let us examine what we were due to consider yesterday. Thirty-one Government amendments, 44 Labour amendments and some amendments from the Liberal Democrats were tabled. During the debate, 13 Labour Members, nine Conservative Members and one Liberal Member spoke. That was because my hon. Friends


moved several new clauses. During that time, there were 53 Labour interventions and 40 Conservative interventions. The longest speech of all was made by the Secretary of State. So any argument about abuse of the time available falls flat on its face. The Secretary of State spoke for almost 40 minutes at one point. Well might he smile about those bogus charges about the Opposition not wanting to get on with the important matters for debate.
Not only were speeches made from the Government Benches but several speeches made by Conservative Members were important criticisms of the provisions of the Bill. I refer to the interventions made by the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison). They asked important questions about the implications of the Secretary of State's proposals. The one exception was the patsy type of speech by the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who smiles at me from a sedentary position.
The Bill confuses the roles of the regulators—the inspectors—with that of the providers of the service—the schools and the teachers—by allowing the latter to pick their own watchdog. That is far too cosy a relationship for Opposition Members to accept, and it is contrary to the flow of argument that we have heard from the Government and their supporters for many years in respect of the Office of Telecommunications, the Office of Water Services, the Office of Electricity Regulation or the National Rivers Authority. Those regulators are all separated from the organisations that they are supposed to scrutinise in the public interest.
Yet we are told in respect of our children's education—as I often say, it is our children's education, not that of Conservative Members' children—that a cosy little relationship should be allowed between the schools and their inspectors. It is rather like mice choosing their own cats. It is a Tom and Jerry type of relationship. There will be cosy little get-togethers among people who want to cuddle up to each other. There is no way that anyone can sustain the argument that that is proper independent scrutiny of important aspects of education. So we make no apology for opposing the measure and wanting to deal in detail with the implications for our schools and children.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend might be going a little far to suggest that the relationship is a corrupting one, but does he agree that in the eyes of parents and perhaps the general public it might be potentially corrupting of otherwise disinterested professionals?

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend must choose his own words, but I can certainly see the Bill as a recipe for an ineffectual relationship. That is principally why the head teachers themselves do not want the proposals. They have stated clearly that the proposed relationship is not the type that they want to see develop between head teachers, their schools and the inspectorates. Of course, many parents share that view.
The real reason for the timetable motion is nothing to do with proper scrutiny or debate. The Leader of the House is in a panic because of the Government's hidden election timetable. It is all consistent with a general

election on 9 April. I hope that that is the case. Even on yesterday's opinion poll result, the Government will be out of office, and the sooner that happens, the better.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science has been confronted in interviews and debates many times, most recently this morning on breakfast television, about the aspect of his legislation that I have described. He has refused to answer directly how he can possibly justify it. I do not suspect that we shall get any more clarity from him about it today. But we shall try.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): If a school in Lambeth chooses between two inspectors, it chooses between two inspectors who are independent of it and detached from the provider. The Labour alternative is that Lambeth schools should have no choice and should be inspected only by Lambeth council, which runs them. The provider would inspect the provider. The argument used as the basis for the daft filibuster last night does not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

Dr. Cunningham: Under the Secretary of State's proposals, the inspectors would be paid by the school that they are engaged to inspect. There is a customer-client relationship there. To say that that is a road to independent scrutiny of what is going on in schools is ridiculous. The inspectors will be employed by the school.
As the Secretary of State has unwisely come back to the point about filibustering, I remind him that the longest single speech yesterday was made by him. He is the last on to complain about Labour Members questioning his proposals. In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said about the proposal, I refer him to what the hon. Member for Buckingham said yesterday on that very issue:
If a school is inspected by this or that type of inspector and receives full marks for its work but does not merit those marks, that will become clear over time and as a result of trial and error."—[Official Report, 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 964.]
What the right hon. Gentleman is proposing yet again is more experiments with our children's education; more hitty-missy approaches to the Government's policy dogmas. That is what his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham believes, and that is what we believe, too.
We intend to put the most searching spotlight on this further ridiculous and unnecessary experimenting with our children's education standards and with their schools, because this is a matter of great interest to the people of this country, and rightly so.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The accusation that we were filibustering yesterday is hardly borne out by what happened on the Government Benches. At one stage, the lack of enthusiasm for this Bill was evidenced on the Tory Back Benches. There was only a part of the Tory Front-Bench team in the Chamber; there was not a single Back Bencher to continue the debate. Hon. Gentlemen went out frantically to drag Back Benchers in from the corridors. They know that what I am saying is abolutely true.

Mr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reality is that hon. Gentlemen will be in the Lobbies tonight when the votes come, but they demonstrate by their absence now their lack of commitment to the state education system.
The Government have broken the back of the British economy, as evidenced yet again by the Confederation of British Industry report, the Engineering Employers Federation, the building employers and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. What the Government are about here again is another dogmatic experiment with education in our schools. This legislation ought to be stopped. We will do our best to prevent its getting on the statute book. That is what these debates are all about.

Mr. David Madel: I regret that we have to have a guillotine on this important matter. I and, I think, many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, prefer it when the Front Benches can reach a voluntary agreement as to how much time we should spend on any particular Bill. However, being faced with a guillotine very much concentrates minds and gives Ministers the chance to reply very specifically to questions from both inside and outside the Chamber.
I did not think that yesterday's debate wandered very much, but it did give rise to one very interesting matter in relation to the inspection of schools, which affects Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir. T. Raison) said:
the county of Buckinghamshire …has produced the highest level of GCE passes of any of the shire counties in England and the second highest of any of the English local authorities."—[Official Report, 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 976.]
One of the reasons why Buckinghamshire children have done so well is that so many of them cross over into my constituency in Bedfordshire to take the GCE in two Leighton Buzzard upper schools—Van Dyke and Cedars—both extremely good schools, I congratulate the Government on loosening the rigidity between the local education authorities, which allows young people in Buckinghamshire to cross over and makes Buckinghamshire parents very happy. When the Government are re-elected I hope that, as education develops, they will be able to make it more precise and obvious that the money really follows the pupil.
I know that Buckinghamshire young people will continue to cross the border into Leighton Buzzard for their GCE, so obviously we want to see in Bedfordshire more evidence of the money following the pupil. That is for the next Conservative Government and the next Education Secretary. I merely mention it in passing because a little wandering in the debate did bring in a very important Buckinghamshire-Bedfordshire point.
As I have said, the guillotine concentrates the mind. The moton says:
The proceedings on consideration and Third reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
One of the reasons why I am glad that we are to get this matter dealt with today is that there appears to be an unclear position with regard to inspection of schools. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who I am very glad to see in his place, wrote to Dr. R. Morris of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities earlier this month and said in one part of his letter, referring to the local education authorities:
They will also be able to go into schools in connection with carrying out their broad statutory duties for the provision of education.
That raises a very interesting point, because parents and friends of schools would like to see the LEAs going in to look at deterioration of the buildings; failure to deliver the national curriculum; very poor examination results; the conduct of a particular teacher; the conduct of the governors and the head; alleged financial mismanagement; failure to provide school leavers with guidance and help towards their future careers or towards getting places in a university or a polytechnic; and failure to investigate parental complaints.
Those are specific points. They are all matters which, in my view, are part of a local education authority's broad statutory duty for the provision of education. I understand that if any or all of those points were raised by a parent or a friend of the school, the education authority would be able to go into the school.

Mr. Jack Straw: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with very great care. Is he aware that the Association of County Councils, on which his own county council and Buckinghamshire and many other Conservative county councils are represented—indeed, the association is controlled by the Conservatives—says that the removal of the power to inspect under section 77(3) of the Education Act 1944 will greatly diminish the local authority's ability to intervene in a school that is falling below standard?

Mr. Madel: I am in very close touch with Bedfordshire county council, and the hon. Gentleman is right; it is concerned about this, too. I think that what I will conclude by saying will answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
I do not think that the House of Commons wants to get into an argument about when an inspection is not an inspection. One could play around with the word ad nauseam; then, the next thing that we would be arguing about is the place of the potato in English folklore. We want something very specific, which is why I welcome this specific day for the Bill.
If any of those specific points that I have listed came up, I believe, on the basis of what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his letter, that the local education authority could go into the school. It would be carrying out its broad statutory duty for the provision of education. Every one of those specific points refers to the provision of education. I hope that, before 10 o'clock, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be able to assure me specifically that what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his letter to Dr. Morris would allow local education authorities, if approached by parents or friends of the school, to go into the school to deal with any one of the specific points that I have raised.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I rarely speak or am active on guillotine motions and resulting business arrangements on timing, because in general I have long been in favour of timetabling all Bills from the start. My experience over many years is that Standing Committees and other similar Committees on the Floor of the House, with exceptions that I will come to in a moment, never give Bills the due consideration that they ought to have. One of the reasons why I was in favour of televising the House and Committees was that I thought


that it might be a good idea for the public to see Standing Committees, with Ministers doing their mail and others trying to hold up the business.
With regard to the Bill before us today, education is a most important issue and I doubt whether the House, despite the intentions of the few who are actively interested, has looked at the problems that have arisen.
So in general I am in favour of timetabling from the start. I understand the dangers. I understand the problems in hung Parliaments, and all the rest of it. I had the dubious pleasure, after Second Reading, of trying to pilot the House of Lords reform Bill through the House many years ago, when we found that the divisions were on both sides of the House and any idea that one could timetable or guillotine soon went out of the window.
For the reasons that I have given, I am sceptical of the existing system and therefore I rarely speak on such motions. Yesterday afternoon and evening, I sat in the Chamber because I am interested in the subject of the inspectorate. I owe a great deal to my education many years ago, as I come from the background of a Welsh mining village, where a high proportion of us ended up with university degrees—a far higher rate than in many posher, salubrious, suburban areas. I am even more interested these days, not because of my children who are grown up, but because I am interested in special education. All Governments have failed to deal properly with that, despite all their Ministers' words. I question whether the inspectorate is giving it due consideration.
I listened carefully to the debate on the inspectorate yesterday. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) will know, last century the inspectorate played an important part in developing Welsh education, not necessarily by visiting each school to give its view, although no doubt that played a part but by creating a philosophy—in the Matthew Arnold sense of the term—for the development of education which, frankly, one does not get from party manifestos. When I read that junior Ministers are interfering with the curriculum, I get worried, because I do not think that they know very much about it. There are times when I think that other people know little about it, but politicians are the last people to pontificate about the curriculum, and I hope that teachers and inspectors are concerned about it.
I sat in on the debate yesterday because of my great interest in the role of the inspectorate and in what will happen if schools and local education authorities, however affluent, pay little attention to special needs. What good can a tied inspectorate do?
I saw no example of filibuster yesterday afternoon and evening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunninghan) said, the Secretary of State spoke for a long time—until about 6 o'clock. If there was any urgency in getting the Bill through, the Secretary of State did not show it. There were many interventions. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who has a great interest in education, spoke for a long time, as did other hon. Members on both sides of the House. There was something odd about the whole procedure because there was no great urgency. I began to realise that something was very wrong.
The guillotine was not decided at 9.55 pm last night, when the first frisson went through the Government Front Bench and Ministers began to pass around bits of paper and to consult properly, but earlier.
The only reason that I am speaking is that I do not believe that the guillotine motion has anything to do with speeding up the Education (Schools) Bill because time was being wasted. It is being used simply to speed things up for the general election.
If polling day is 9 April, a certain amount of time is needed to get business through the House, and that is all that the guillotine is for. That is what happened last night. Possibly, the delay in the English and Welsh revenue grants is to enable the Government to deal with the problem of poll tax bills which will be plopping through doors shortly.
I am opposed to what is happening and shall readily vote tonight. It is not because I am not interested in timetabling—although it is too late now, as I shall be leaving the House shortly. I hope that one day there will be pre-timetabling in the House, except for important and constitutional Bills. However, this motion is to do with the election. I must tell the Leader of the House that, if the election is to be on 9 April—everyone is planning for it, buying space to advertise and organising; one hears it from sources in the advertising business who know what the Opposition and the Government are doing—then, for the good of the House, for heaven's sake announce the date and let us do business in a sensible fashion during the next six weeks, instead of proceeding in this way and covering up the reality.
We are in an election period and the guillotine motion is for election purposes. It has nothing to do with the inspectorate. What the Government are doing about the inspectorate is extremely foolish and flies in the face of its proud history.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: If ever there was a case for the timetabling of Bills, it is the shenanigans over this Bill.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Nonsense.

Mr. Nelson: I believe that that is the case, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was right to call for the timetabling of Bills. I notice that a great many people were nodding when he suggested that, possibly including the hon. Lady, who should not be so argumentative because I am agreeing with him. It is a good idea. I have thought so through five years of opposition and 12 years on the Government side.
The real initiative for timetabling Bills must come from Opposition parties.

Mr. Don Dixon: Why?

Mr. Nelson: Because Governments obviously want to timetable their Bills and get their business through as soon as possible. All hon. Members on both sides of the House have an obligation to scrutinise legislation but, understandably, Opposition Members will have more interest in trying to delay it, because if they do not have the votes to defeat the Government, they will try to protract discussion.
Whichever party is in opposition next time, let us try to decide early to timetable more Bills. Let us not have pious words about timetabling Bills every time that there is a debate on a guillotine motion, only to find that nothing happens. The next Opposition party should agree more timetabling of Bills early in the new Parliament, and we should keep to it.
The reason for timetabling is not to satisfy the Government and Opposition Front Benches, but to protect the interests of Back Benchers. We lose out. Our amendments do not get proper consideration on Report or in Committee if there is a timetable motion. Invariably, new clauses will come first in the order of business on Report. Official Government and Opposition motions can crowd out amendments tabled by Back Benchers. There is not adequate opportunity for those of us who feel strongly about aspects of a Bill to raise them.
The answer lies in our own hands. In the next Parliament, let us do something about it, for the sake of Parliament, better legislation and refining legislation more adequately. In the House we serve no one's interests—not the Government's nor those of the people that we seek to represent—by cursory examination of Bills. As a result, hon. Members are left with the option of trying to inveigle their points in an artificial way. Important issues affecting our constituents' schooling and the structure and scrutiny of education are introduced in a wholly artificial and improper manner. The proceedings of the House should not be used for that purpose.
I want a change in the attitude of the Government to guillotines and in the Opposition's attitude towards timetabling. I am worried about the guillotine motion and the extent to which it will inhibit discussion on important matters later. Some of us will be unable to raise matters about which our constituents feel strongly.
Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) mentioned in interventions yesterday a situation in my county of West Sussex which is replicated in many other local authority areas, there should be an opportunity—within order—to raise matters of concern and to obtain assurances from Ministers about them.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) mentioned an important issue which has not received satisfactory answers in Committee, nor is likely to, in what will remain of the Report stage after the guillotine. There is no guarantee that we shall move beyond discussion of new clause 6 and the amendments taken with it. Opposition Members may well decide to make some progress and we may get to new clause 9 and to others further down the list, we cannot be sure about that. As a result, we have no other means of raising important matters.
Labour Members may state that it is the Government's fault for introducing the guillotine. It is not. I should like to have had time to discuss such matters, but the paucity of progress made yesterday, the long speeches and the many amendments which had to be considered left the Government with no option but to move a guillotine motion today. M ore rapid progress could have been made.
I shall not now be able to raise in the debate a subject that is of deep concern to my local education authority in west Sessex. Local education authorities carry out inspections more frequently than the four-year cycle that is likely to be provided in the Bill. I hope that, at the end

of the debate on the guillotine motion, it will be clear that more frequent inspections can also be carried out. That view is shared by five other hon. Members from West Sussex as well, and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is in his place. Sussex Members and others have received strong representations from the governors and head teachers of numerous schools expressing great concern that inspections should take place only once every four years. In that period, negative and positive changes may take place to effect a school's performance. It is important that more frequent inspections should sometimes be possible in order to give continuing reassurance to parents and local charge payers about the educational and management standards of the school and the cost-effectiveness of the provision.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman seemed to miss an important point when he said that head teachers were worried. The National Association of Head Teachers is with us. It does not want the Bill. We have found almost no teachers' organisations or teachers who want it. They do not understand the Bill; we Labour Members understand it and do not want it. The hon. Gentleman should not leave such issues out.

Mr. Nelson: I was not dealing with that important overall view, which the hon. Gentleman also expressed at length yesterday. My understanding of the Bill is that it seeks to improve the inspection performance of the worst authorities in the country by insisting on a minimum number of regular inspections of schools. That is wholly laudable, and I suspect that it does not divide the parties. Everyone wants to achieve that.
An issue that the guillotine motion will not allow us to discuss does not involve improving the average standards, but the fact that those local authorities that already exceed the minimum standard and conduct inspections more frequently than once every four years will be required to lower their standards. I am not happy about that. West Sussex has no quarrel with the Bill's basic objectives of raising the overall quality of schools' teaching and and attainment by changing the inspection system requiring all schools to be inspected periodically. The shortcomings and infrequency of inspections in many areas must detract from the quality of schooling, and the Bill clearly aims to raise the performance of the worst local education authorities.
However, the position in many parts of the country, including west Sussex, is different. We have more frequent reviews and inspections. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will vouch for the effectiveness of the scheme in West Sussex as only last week he commented most warmly on it. Every school has its management and national curriculum provision once a year by inspectors. There is a rolling programme of whole school inspections and detailed subject department inspections.
That more frequent inspection pattern enables better guarantees to be given to parents and local charge payers of the standards and effectiveness of schools. It success is partly demonstrated by the fact that school examination results in West Sussex ranked third in the country according to The Times performance league.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State will understand why there is reluctance to change a system that has served us well and to reduce the frequency of inspections from once every year to once every four years. Schools should


be able to request more frequent inspections so that the best practice of a few is not brought down to the standard practice of the many. Such a policy should commend itself to the Government and my constituents, and I will be perplexed if it is not accepted today.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely difficult to explain to parents in our constituencies that the interests of their children are being better served by having inspections once every four years rather than once a year as at present?

Mr. Nelson: I feel bound to agree. It is extremely difficult for us to support a structural change that will effectively and perceptively reduce the frequency and radically change the rolling nature of the inspection system.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but does he accept that the position is even worse? Under the Government proposals, not only will the cycle of inspection in West Sussex be reduced from one inspection every year to one inspection every four years, but if problems arise in a school between those inspections, the local authority will have no power to go into that school and investigate the problems.

Mr. Nelson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall come to that later. It is one of the glaring lacunae which we shall be unable to debate due to yesterday's performance and the necessity for a guillotine motion today.
To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, the only arguments that I have heard against my proposition that we should be able to continue with better practices and more frequent inspections if we so want is that it might lead to duplication and would provide an inadequate basis for performance comparison. It is also argued that a rolling programme of inspections is inferior to a full-blown, big-bang inspection once every four years.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have some sympathy with the West Sussex case, and I respect my hon. Friend's views, but I know that he would not wish to overstate the case. I hope that he appreciates that, under the Bill, the inspections every four years on the basis of the criteria drawn up by Her Majesty's chief inspector will not be the same as the annual inspections that West Sussex currently carries out. A typical West Sussex inspection is a day's visit on a taster basis to inspect some aspects of a school's performance.
There is nothing in the Bill to stop the West Sussex practice from continuing as long as the authority has the assent of the head teachers and governors. No one in West Sussex has led me to believe that there is any move there on behalf of the head teachers and governors to stop that process. It is a somewhat fanciful fear to read the Bill and believe that that system is under threat—[Interruption.] I am being barracked by Opposition spokesmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) certainly should not lend his weight to the argument of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is advocating something quite different from the system used by West Sussex and is a leading Labour Member of Parliament in a county that carries out no inspections at all.

Mr. Nelson: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, but I had tabled an amendment, which will not now be debated and which sought in the simplest terms to redress that problem. I was told by the Government that they would oppose that proposal, as it was unacceptable to them.
My amendment, which cannot now be discussed, sought to ensure that, if we in West Sussex chose to have inspections more frequently than once every four years, we could do so. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State now says that we can do that. My amendment might have been defeated if it had been selected, but as a result of the guillotine motion we may not debate it.
I do not wish to be argumentative. It is certainly in my interests to try to find a way forward with my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is looking perplexed. I hope that we can come to some agreement on the matter. If the intent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is genuine, as I am sure it is, I believe that there is a way forward, and I shall go on to suggest it.
It is not in the interests of schools or local education authorities to duplicate inspections, even if they had the resources to do so. So we would not want a full-blown inspection every year. I can see that the comparative performance of schools in West Sussex and elsewhere might be assessed more confidently if the inspection were based on the same system of periodic inspections. It is the standard of quality of the inspection, rather than the interval between inspections, that will produce comparable assessments.
As for the Government's insistence on a comprehensive snapshot of schools once every four years, rather than a rolling programme of more frequent inspections, the Secretary of State has perhaps not fully appreciated how the existing system works in LEAs in West Sussex, and in the context of the guillotine, I am raising points on which it is hoped assurances will be given by the Government. It is relevant because our inspection programme has been developed to ensure that there is a systematic collection of evidence regarding pupil achievement through seven interlinked but separate inspection programmes.
That involves a whole school or college inspection, under which, each year, the advisory and inspection service mounts a number of whole school general inspections which give a comprehensive review of the quality of achievement and work in a single school. Those inspections are similar to HMI full inspections and result in a report that is available to parents, governors and the education committee. Every year, about four secondary schools, 12 primary schools and a special school are inspected in that way. That broadly equates with the four-yearly inspections proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Soames: I endorse the warning by the Minister to beware the point made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in whose area there are no inspections. Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent aspect of the West Sussex system is that it enables the local authority to build a really comprehensive picture of the position on a regular basis at the most intimate levels, whereas an inspection in depth every four and a half years would provide no such perspective for parents, so that it would be deleterious for schools to go in for the proposed four-year programme?

Mr. Nelson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am anxious not to stray from the motion, so it is difficult to go into such matters in detail. Under the guillotine, we may not have any opportunity to discuss the issues in which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I, and many others, are interested. Having read the proceedings in Standing Committee, particularly on 17 December, I did not find adequately discussed the points in which we are interested.
It is important, in the context of the motion, to refer to those and allied issues, because the House must appreciate the way in which we in West Sussex operate. In addition to our whole school inspections, which apply to a number of schools every year, there are other components of our rolling inspection programme. They comprise the inspection of development and management processes; department inspections; family inspections which cover groups of schools and which are based on secondary transfer patterns; and surveys of single-issue matters, such as the implementation of the national curriculum and reports on classroom visits. For example, this year in West Sussex there will be more than 5,000 classroom visits looking directly at the work and standard of pupils. We also have so-called longitudinal inspections on the database of pupils.
Those issues are important in the context of today's discussion because they emphasise a point that did not emerge in the Standing Committee debates and may not be developed in any of the later debates in connection with the special circumstances in West Sussex. Our comprehensive and continuous system of inspection not only produces good results but flags up more quickly problems needing attention. Unless that continues to be possible under the Bill, or unless it is provided for in an assurance from the Minister, six out of the seven programmes that I have outlined will be in danger because of the imposition of the exclusive four-year inspection system.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I appreciate that, because my hon. Friend fears that he may not have an opportunity to speak later, he is anxious to expand now on the points worrying him. I attempted to reassure him some moments ago—as I did yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—that such matters are not threatened but can continue. My hon. Friend is worried lest the guillotine cuts out debate of amendment 59, which stands in the names of, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames), my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, who intervened yesterday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) who also spoke yesterday.
I accept that that amendment is unlikely to be reached, because of the filibuster—[Interruption.]—and the consequential guillotine. Had it been reached, it would have purported to give schools the right to arrange for the inspections to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has been referring. Our reaction would have been not to resist it but to say that the amendment was not necessary because schools have the right to arrange such inspections.
My hon. Friend said that the four-year cycle was exclusive. I am glad of this opportunity to make it clear that it is not exclusive. The powers that his amendment sought to give governors would have been resisted on drafting grounds—on the ground that governors do not

require them because they already have them, as the appropriate authority, to arrange for such inspections to take place, in West Sussex or anywhere else, if they require such inspections.

Mr. Nelson: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and it seems that we are getting there. His words will be read carefully in West Sussex. The LEA should have the right to continue—if its standards are in excess of the minimum provided in the Bill—a system of inspection which is well tried and is more frequent. If that means that there need not be any change in the practices in West Sussex, we shall be delighted. If that is the case—and the intent of my amendment, which I cannot now discuss, would have been in order—it is difficult to see why it would not have been accepted. I will go no further into that now because I am anxious not to try the patience of the Chair.
My right hon. and learned Friend may agree that perhaps it is possible to accommodate the West Sussex model by which there is a more extensive whole school inspection, with a residual right for schools to call in registered inspectors between four-yearly inspections. The practical problem may be the money involved in doing that, over and above the cost of the full four-yearly inspection for which the school will receive a financial allocation.
But if the registered inspector can do the job every four years more cheaply, money may be left over for additional inspections, or advisory services, in each of the intervening years. It is not clear from the Bill as drafted whether more regular inspection of that type could take place, even if schools could find the resources or if the LEA decided to ask local charge payers to pay more to finance such inspections.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I got the impression that, when he was referring to cash, the Secretary of State did not hear his remarks. The major distinction between what he and his right hon. and learned Friend have said is that the Secretary of State implied that the school would be able to carry out such services, whereas the hon. Gentleman wants the county council, on a systematic basis, to continue with such services. That is not possible under the Bill because of the removal of the section 77(3) power. A local authority will not be allowed under the Bill to run an inspection service —unless it is self-financing—if it tenders for four-yearly inspections and receives all its income as a direct result. Not only will there not be any power for it to run an inspection service, but the local authority will not have any money to do so.

Mr. Nelson: That is not what my local education authority has told me, and I would not wish to drive a coach and horses through what I regard as the laudable intention of the Bill—to which I know my right hon. and learned Friend is committed—to raise the average standards of inspection. I am merely saying that, when the minimum requirement of the law has been met, there is no reason to prevent a school or education authority from exceeding the required standard and providing a superior quality of inspection.
I do not wish to persevere with that argument, because it may not be entirely in the spirit of the timetable motion. Let me return to the strict terms of the motion.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Like West Sussex, Durham runs a very successful inspection service. Schools are inspected once a year. It now appears that, if West Sussex and Durham, for example, do not win the tenders from their schools, they will no longer be able to continue that service—in which case the additional service that the Secretary of State describes will not be possible.

Mr. Nelson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but, whatever may happen in Durham, I do not think that such circumstances will arise in West Sussex: my local education authority feels confident about that.
I do not wish to preserve the inspection rights of local education authorities as an immortal institution; I simply want the schools in my area to be inspected properly and adequately, and as frequently as possible. I want value for money, and if that can be provided by a registered inspector rather than a local education authority, I am all for it.
So far, I have dealt with the case for discussion, during the time allotted to us, of the merits of more regular inspection than that provided by the Bill. The hon. Member for Blackburn, however, has raised a related issue, about which the Association of County Councils has expressed some concern. I refer to clarification of the residual powers of local education authorities to enter schools when that is necessary. I consider it reasonable, and within the terms of the debate on the timetable motion, to ask my right hon. and learned Friend for further clarification. Clauses 9 to 15 of the Bill, and the repeal of part of section 77 of the 1944 Act in schedule 5, call those powers into question.
Under the 1944 Act, local education authorities are charged with a number of basic responsibilities. Those responsibilities include providing a varied and comprehensive education service in every area, ensuring that sufficient education is available to meet the needs of the population and ensuring that schools are sufficient in number, character and equipment to provide educational opportunities for all pupils. Those fundamental provisions have not been amended by subsequent legislation, nor are they amended in the Bill; but what will they amount to if local education authorities are specifically prevented from inspecting their own maintained schools, and are not explicitly empowered to go into those schools in pursuance of their broad statutory responsibilities?
My right hon. and learned Friend has sought to assure the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that education authorities' rights to enter in connection with their statutory duties will remain implicit rather than explicit. His letter to the association stated that, if a school unreasonably refused entry to a local education authority, the Government would be prepared to use section 68 —

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now relating his comments to one of the amendments. He has remained in good order until now; I should be grateful if he would continue in that spirit.

Mr. Nelson: I shall endeavour to heed your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me just say that, as far as I am aware, the only amendment on which this narrow point about the right of entry could possibly have been discussed was ruled out of order. I must be careful not to address that amendment, which, for various technical reasons, was deemed to be outside the terms of the Bill.
However, my right hon. and learned Friend now has an opportunity to clarify matters which he may not have later, and which was not provided to an adequate degreee either in Committee or in the correspondence that has taken place.
I do not consider the present position satisfactory. The only legal powers that are provided by section 68 of the 1944 Act are very narrow, and very rarely used: they take time, and they require referral. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that, before we approve the timetable motion, we should enable my right hon. and learned Friend to confirm that the right to enter schools should be explicit.

Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Nelson: Will my hon. Friend allow me to press on for a bit? I fear that I may so trespass on the patience of the Chair that I shall not manage to make some important points. I shall try to be brief, and I shall give way if an opportunity arises later.
Local education authorities—including West Sussex—do not claim a monopoly of inspection expertise; nor do they resist the principle of regular independent inspection. What they claim is the right to enter and inspect as and when they judge it necessary, at their own cost. Serious —indeed, heartrending—circumstances could arise in which such rights of entry would be necessary under the statutory residual powers. Abuses of various kinds might be reported, which individual schools might be reluctant to address for "image" reasons but which should nevertheless be investigated immediately. Furthermore, a school might falter in the intervening time between the four-yearly inspections. Problems can arise following the appointment of a poor head teacher; the head might be at loggerheads with the chairman of the governors.
In all such cases, education authorities must have a direct right of entry, which can be speedily implemented, to fulfil their statutory obligations. If something serious goes wrong and parents complain to the local education authority, is the authority to throw up its arms and say, "We have been denied an explicit right of entry to the school, and there is nothing we can do"? It would be very difficult for any of us to justify that to our constituents; indeed, it might result in tragedies that could have been avoided.

Mr. Madel: My hon. Friend mentioned the statutory provision of a general duty to provide education. Since the passage of the 1944 Act, two important additions have been bolted on: the delivery of the national curriculum, and the testing of children at seven and, in due course, at 11. Those duties must be performed properly.

Mr. Nelson: That is absolutely right. I am not trying to undermine the principle, or the practical provisions, of the legislation; I am merely saying that serious circumstances may arise in which the Government cannot be relied on to sort out the problem. In such circumstances, a right of entry should be provided explicitly.
For all those reasons, I believe that the Government must make it plain—as they failed to do in Committee—that local education authorities have explicit powers to enter schools and fulfil their statutory obligations. I hope that, if that cannot be done tonight, provision will be made in another place.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The rebellion on the Tory Benches has not been on a large scale, but it has certainly been lengthy. I shall come on to the West Sussex question in a moment—although I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall not deal with it at the same length as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson).
Let me begin by referring to earlier discussion about how the present circumstances came about, and what could be done in the future. There has been a certain amount of disingenuous comment, but one thing is for certain—the guillotine will squeeze out proper debate of the important amendments.
Parliamentary business could be organised in far more effective ways. However, a system of simple agreement between the Conservative and Labour Front Benches is a system liable to block the alternative views of both Back Benchers and other parties. In discussions both last night and today, none of those views has been represented. Had they been represented, it is likely that we would not be in this situation now and the hon. Member for Chichester would have been able to move his amendment rather than borrowing time from the guillotine debate to discuss it.
We should be wary of reforms that introduce easy time-tabling, to the convenience of both Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams, because there is a risk that it would be used as a means to stifle rather than enhance debate. Inevitably, both Front Benches find that to their advantage.
The Secretary of State has not been able to give an answer to the West Sussex question. I am appalled that the guillotine motion will mean that there will be no debate on this. My only consolation is that, while the Government may be able to push the Bill through this House, they will not be able to push it through the other place.
There is an obvious logic to the question that has been posed but which Ministers have not answered. What is the advantage of moving to a system that, rather than enhancing inspections, reduces them? There is no question but that in West Sussex, as in other parts of the country, that will happen.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I keep trying to handle the West Sussex question sympathetically, partly by saying that the fears are unnecessary. In their enthusiasm to rush to the defence of West Sussex, people are grossly exaggerating what goes on there. The Bill institutes a four-year regular cycle of full inspections of every aspect of the school, its delivery, curriculum and management. It will take about a week for a team of inspectors to inspect a medium-sized secondary school. The West Sussex system is of inspections carried out once a year, with the consent of the governors, taking only one day and looking at the teaching of only one subject, such as maths. As I have already said, there is no reason why that system cannot continue.
It is absurd for the Labour party to imply that my hon. Friends with constituencies in West Sussex are suggesting anything that is in line with its policy, but it is equally absurd for the Liberal Democrats to join in with a grotesque exaggeration of a fantastic Rolls-Royce system in West Sussex that is about to be cut. When it is got into proportion, it will be found that the West Sussex question is a tiny one. I accept that I have so far failed to satisfy my hon. Friends that what they are defending is not being threatened by the Bill.

Mr. Taylor: I am glad that the Secretary of State made that intervention. If he were right in his portrayal of the effects of the Bill, he would go a long way to reassuring us, but he is incorrect for two substantial reasons. The first, which has already been addressed, is the financial difficulty that a local authority will have in providing such a system, because of the financial arrangements that the Secretary of State has announced. If he is to take the opportunity of the debate on the guillotine motion to announce a change in financial arrangements, that will be welcome.
In Committee, Ministers outlined a second and more fundamental problem. Again, it could be changed and, were it changed, that would go a long way to giving us a reassurance that would meet the basis of the question, although it would not necessarily tie up all the loose ends. It is that if registered inspectors and their teams within a local authority go into a school outside the four-year cycle —either because they are called in or because parents have expressed concerns—that would not be a formal inspection, because there is no role for that within the four-year cycle, so it would count as advice to the school from the local authority. That would mean that the inspectors who had performed the work would be debarred from making any other inspections of the school, on the ground that they had offered advice to it. That was made clear by Ministers in a debate in Committee on an amendment on the subject that I tabled on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
A local authority wishing to maintain an inspection service to deliver the four-year cycle cannot afford to have inspectors going into schools at other times, because that will debar them from making future inspections and gradually wear away the ability of the local authority and its registered inspectors to provide an inspection service. Inevitably, local authorities will not be prepared to undertake that role.
It should not be difficult for the Secretary of State to make changes that would meet that objection without opening up the avenue of an alternative four-year cycle. I never argued that local authority cycles of inspections should be in competition with those called in by the schools. That would be a waste of money. However, in Committee, Ministers confirmed that any inspection outside the regular cycle would be counted as the tendering of advice, which would thereby debar inspectors from going into schools subsequently. That is a substantive point, but perhaps the Secretary of State will correct it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I think that we are getting clarity. The local authority can have a right of entry and inspection, if one wants to call it inspecting, so long as that right of entry is pursuant to a statutory duty. That is implicit and does not have to be spelt out. The attempt to do so, by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), was ruled out of order. Secondly, governors have the right to invite local authorities to come in for any purpose that they think is necessary, including inspecting or giving advice.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a third point. It is that the Bill tries to separate the functions of advice and inspection for the reason that, if we relax that generally, there would be the absurd situation that we believe that the Labour party is advocating. People would advise the school between inspections and then make an inspection and commend their advice and the result of their labours to the parents.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is saying that, if employees of the local authority have gone to a school other than when performing an inspection pursuant to their statutory duty, they will automatically be counted as advisers. I think that that is not correct—I shall check and come back later if I am wrong—because it depends on what they do. People are advisers only if they have been visiting a school for the purpose of giving advice. If they have been advising on a school's management or performance, they are not suitable to inspect the results of their advice. They cannot be deemed to be advisers if they have not given any advice about what has happened on previous visits.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The allocation of time motion allows only a narrow debate, but I am trying to be as generous as possible within the Standing Orders. I ask hon. Members to be sympathetic to the Chair and help it to maintain Standing Orders. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is going into a great deal of detail about amendments. If he would relate what he is saying to, or complain about, the allocation of time motion from time to time, I should be happy to hear that.

Mr. Taylor: My point is precisely that we are not able to raise these questions because of the guillotine. It is clear from the debate so far that that is the case and that the Bill will not be adequately debated. I do not wish to cause you a problem, Madam Deputy Speaker, but, in view of the Minister's comments, I ask that he looks at the Committee debate on this subject, when the Minister of State said that that was not the way that it was expected that the Bill would be interpreted. His interpretation was that because the right of inspection is removed, anything outside that regular four-year cycle can be seen only as advice. Perhaps the Secretary of State will ask his advisers and reconsider the issue. If he is unable to come back to us during this debate, perhaps he will write to us before the Bill goes to another place, because it is an important issue.

Mr. Straw: I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) will recollect that it was made clear in Committee that schedule 2(3)(5) would exclude people who had given advice to a school from inspecting it. He will recall that the terms of paragraph (3)5 are very wide. It states:
It shall be the duty of the registered inspector"—
the head of the firm—
to ensure that no person takes any part in an inspection if he has, or has at any time had—

(a) any connection with the school in question, or
(b) any connection with any person employed at the school,
of a kind which might reasonably be taken to raise doubts about his ability to act impartially in relation to that school."

It is plain from what the Secretary of State says that if
inspectors went to a school under the advisory powers now being offered to West Sussex, it would be difficult for the same people to undertake an inspection.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. I can add to my list of complaints about the guillotine motion the fact that, because I did not expect the debate to occur now, I do not have with me the Committee references that would allow me to quote the Minister. However, the Minister has civil servants and, no doubt, his own records and he will be able to read for himself. He made it clear that a local

authority could send inspectors to a school but that those inspectors would not be able at a later date to go back to the school as part of the regular four-year cycle. Inevitably, West Sussex or any other local authority would not be prepared to use its inspectors in that way because it would destroy its own inspection service by so doing.
It is deeply ironic that we should be debating a guillotine motion on a Bill which will more than halve the HMI and in so doing tear out its ability to visit schools in any number, on the very afternoon that the Secretary of State announced at a press conference—and he will shortly be doing interviews—the annual report of the senior chief inspector of schools. The report's introduction emphasises the fact that the quality of the report is underpinned by the 7,000 or so visits that HMI was able to undertake.
Guillotining the Bill will remove the ability effectively to consider amendments to a change which will wipe out for ever HMI's ability to undertake reports on that basis and of that quality. The Secretary of State welcomes the quality of information that HMI is able to provide, but he sits in on the guillotine motion of a Bill which will end that ability once and for all. That seems appalling. I hope that there will be a general election in time to stop the Bill and that, no matter who wins the election, the Government of the day will not introduce a Bill that affects HMI in that way and which removes its ability to offer the advice that has been valued for many years as independent and authoritative. It will no longer be authoritative, because it will not have the benefit of direct experience of schools on which to base it. There are many reasons to hope for an early election, but I feel strongly that that is one of the best.

Mr. James Pawsey: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and it struck me as the speech of a man who had not had the pleasure of listening to some of his hon. Friends speak last night. I suspect that, if he had, he would have changed his mind. Clearly, the reasons for the timetable motion—or the guillotine—can be found in the unreasonable behaviour of Opposition Members. There is little doubt that they filibustered, and I shall justify that claim on three specific grounds.
All three Deputy Speakers who last night supervised the debate had cause to bring Opposition Members to order for straying from the subject. I think that that must be unique. It must be the first time that each occupant of the Chair has had to bring Opposition Members to order. In my time in the House— going back to 1979—I have never seen a debate handled so badly by the Opposition. I also noticed that at least one hon. Gentleman was brought to order on two occasions—that was the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—and I feel that that is some justification for levelling a charge of filibustering.
I advance a second reason for the charge of filibustering. Hansard records the lengths of interventions from Opposition Members and some were longer than the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens). His speech was concise and very much to the point—what a contrast there was between his admirable speech and the interventions made by Opposition Members.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in his place. I recall his being reminded by


the occupant of the Chair—on two separate occasions, I think—about the length of his interventions. Clearly, that underlines my point that there was filibustering last night. Even the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington. (Mr. Fallon), who is known in this place for his good manners and for his tolerant and friendly attitude, found it necessary to accuse the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of filibustering; on that occasion he was right, as he is on so many others.

Mr. Simon Burns: Give him a job.

Mr. Pawsey: I have no desire for a job, thank you.
The third reason to justify the charge of filibustering is the speech made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), which lasted for about 25 minutes and referred, among other matters, to an inspection of a school which took place in 1860. Hon. Members may ask what is the relevance to the Bill of an inspection that took place in 1860. It is also significant that the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the earldom of Fitzwilliam. Again, that seemed to be straying from the point.
Nevertheless, I found the hon. Gentleman's speech interesting and I was able to discover that he, like myself, had served in the Royal Air Force. He also noted the educational improvements that have taken place in the past 40 years. I genuinely enjoyed his speech, but it was rather long-winded—indeed, it was longer than that made by his hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). Those of us who have sat through the hon. Lady's speeches will know that, at times, they seem interminable but last night her speech was shorter than that of the hon. Member for Wentworth.

Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: In a moment.
I dislike using the word "filibuster". It is an Americanism which has crept into our language only because we do not have an alternative word. I believe that an alternative is now at hand—the word "Wentworth". That has a good solid English ring to it. We should invent the verb "to wentworth"—

Mr. Burns: What about "to flannery"?

Mr. Pawsey: That is a competitor and perhaps we could conjoin the two—

Mr. Burns: To flannel.

Mr. Pawsey: —to flannel and to wentworth—and make it even more imposing.

Mr. Flannery: As a matter of fact, the longest speech last night was made by the Secretary of State, who spoke for 40 minutes. I was in a Select Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was speaking, but the speech just made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) lasted for 34 minutes of the short time that we have available. To my knowledge he was pulled up at least twice for deviating from the point at issue. Why does not the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) mention that?

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Not for the first time, he has given me a perfect illustration of the verb "to flannery". That is splendid.

Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): A wet flannery.

Mr. Pawsey: Quite so.
Conservative Members want the Bill to be enacted. We want the improved inspection arrangements; we want parents to have more information about what takes place in the nation's schools, where their children—our children —are educated.
Professor Anthony King said recently:
In terms of big ideas, Labour is travelling light to the point of nudity.
—I am pleased to say that the occupants of the Labour Benches are reasonably clothed at the moment. Professor King's remarks about Labour's lack of a big idea were borne out in last night's debate. We heard all the usual pious hand-wringing, the heart and breast-baring demands for a period of stability in education.
My hon. Friends and I found that extraordinary, because Labour is the party which wants, for example, to abolish grant-maintained schools. It is said that one of the first acts of an incoming Labour Government would be to introduce legislation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) seems to be confirming that the Labour party would abolish grant-maintained schools—schools which have been established following a vote by parents.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman inform me how that relates to the allocation of time motion?

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have given me the opportunity to describe the connection. You were present for much of last night's debate and will have heard how Labour Members prayed in aid all sorts of ideas. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to a document which he claimed was Labour party education policy. Of course, that document refers to the abolition of grant-maintained schools, so that is why I made that passing reference, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If the guillotine had not been imposed, there would have been an opportunity, as we discussed some of the later clauses, to describe how the Labour party would abolish city technology colleges, grammar schools, the assisted places scheme—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret to have to call the hon. Gentleman to order for a second time so soon. We are speaking about an allocation of time motion. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know how to deal with such matters. I hope that he will now do so.

Mr. Pawsey: I apologise unreservedly to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for any discourtesy that you may have inferred from my remarks—it was unintentional, I assure you. I listened carefully to what you said, and I assure you that I will remain within order from now on.
I should have liked to reach the second part of the Bill, but, sadly, we may not now do so, because of the way in which the guillotine works. You have studied the Bill carefully, I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, so you will recall that the second part concerns information and schools, and will provide parents and others with greater knowledge of what takes place in local education


authorities and in the nation's schools. It is not surprising that the Guild of Newspaper Editors supports the principle underlying the Bill.
Sadly, the Standing Committee did not reach one of the provisions that I would have liked to have discussed, which refers to ethnic communities. I hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State replies to the debate, he will say a word about how schools and areas with large ethnic groups will receive the information that we feel that they should receive. Not all parents in such areas speak English as a first language. It is important that they, like other parents, are made aware of what is taking place in their children's schools.
It has been argued that tables comprising what is described as raw data are unhelpful because they do not provide enough information for a reasonable comparison to be made. I have two specific answers to that. First, it is an extremely patronising attitude. The implication is that parents have not the ability to make a choice, that they do not possess the interest, motivation or knowledge to make a reasoned decision. People should understand that parents are not as thick as Labour Members seek to have us believe.
Parents know about catchment areas, about which school has a large proportion of youngsters whose first language is not English. Parents understand those things and can make allowances for them, provided that the basic information is made available.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Can the hon. Gentleman cite one parents' organisation that supports the Bill?

Mr. Pawsey: I have not the slightest doubt that parents will rally to support the Act once it is on the statute book and they see and appreciate the benefits that flow from it. I served on the Committee on the Education Reform Act 1988. Labour Members condemned and opposed that Act. They said that it would mean the end of education as we knew it, yet now we know it to be a great reforming Act.
People who seek to discredit the tables must understand that, tables or no tables, parents will still make judgments about schools. The only difference is that such judgments would be based on information picked up at the school gate or on what other parents say at open evenings. In the past, there has been no real source of information, and the Bill does much to remedy that. The tables will be widely welcomed by parents as an essential tool to help them to select a school for their children.
The thrust and burden of the Bill is to improve the quality and standard of state education. Labour Members are suspicious about parents. They believe that only professionals should have opinions. I have news for them —parents want to know about the quality of individual schools and local education authorities, and we will ensure that that information is made available to them.
Labour Members want to treat parents like mushrooms, fed on a selective diet and kept firmly in the dark.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should love to hear what the hon. Gentleman thinks about the motion under discussion.

Mr. Pawsey: It may be appropriate, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I now draw my remarks to a conclusion.
It was Chairman Mao who said that knowledge is power. Conservatives intend to put that knowledge into the hands of the nation's parents.

Mr. John McFall: We have witnessed a spectacular own goal by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). His case for the Government rested on the assertion that we spoke for too long last night and had to be called to order. Yet three times during his speech you, Madam Deputy Speaker, called him to order, so his case has a huge hole in it.
I respect the hon. Gentleman and am happy to hear him speak. He was the only Conservative Back-Bench Member who was here throughout the debate last night, unlike those who intervened and then walked away, such as the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). They had no interest in it. It is amazing that a Conservative Member should speak for 34 minutes and complain about the guillotine motion when he was not even here to listen to the debate last night. What hypocrisy.
I wish to speak on the guillotine motion and to complain that we have no opportunity to discuss the major problems. I wish to debate the issues that affect Scotland. Clause 17 has massive implications for Scotland. It is an enabling clause that allows the Secretary of State for Scotland to gather unrestricted information on what is happening in schools, including personal information about pupils, their families and backgrounds, and it could be open to abuse.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is now making his clause 17 stand part speech which he failed to make in Committee?

Mr. McFall: The Minister of State is perceptive sometimes, but his perceptiveness has departed from him tonight. I am complaining about the guillotine motion. I was here yesterday from 3.30 and I participated in every debate until 10 o'clock. The Government then panicked because they thought that the schedule for a 9 April election might not be adhered to. They therefore stopped the business, despite the fact that we were debating the Bill clause by clause.
I am not against the disclosure of information, but the Bill places no limits on the nature of the information that the Secretary of State may require. It empowers him to obtain and publish information as he decides, without democratic or parliamentary control. That cannot be right, and the guillotine motion offers us less opportunity to mould the Bill as we would wish.
Clause 17 enables the Tories' parents charter to be applied in Scotland. The Scottish public have been suspicious about Tory claims and their implementation of education for many years. The Government's response has been a cavalier disregard for the massive opposition to their education proposals in Scotland in the past four or five years. No matter what arguments are made against them or how strong the public opinion, the Minister of State, Scottish Office goes ahead with his policies and ideological love children, such as the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988.
The parents charter has difficulty in hiding the fiasco in Tory education policy. In Scotland there are no opt-out schools or city technology colleges, and two thirds of


children in state education last year did not take the national test. The current elections in Strathclyde and Grampian regions, to name just two, saw the collapse of school boards. In Grampian, 40 per cent. of the schools had no nominations, and in Strathclyde 67 per cent. had insufficient nominations.
I am against the crude statistics in league tables. Sadly, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and his Ministers have not listened to the educationists. Last night, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) spoke about international comparisons. The Secretary of State should consider them. In America, tests have been running for many years, and bitter lessons can be learned from them. Given the vigorous treatment by the press of league tables, which can be used to praise or pillory teachers and their methods, and given that statistics are used by estate agents to rate neighbourhoods, the scores can become very high, and the scores in American tests have become higher over the years.
If that is what the Government want, fair enough, but Opposition Members and educationists want to know how that has influenced learning. Teachers are under enormous pressure to raise the test scores and children in the United States are now trained in test-taking only. Where is the learning?
At Christmas, I read a magazine article on education in America, which gave an example of a question given to 17-year-old high school students. It was an objective test on America and the students were to choose their answers from boxes. The question was, "When did the first world war begin?" In one box the answer was, "Between 1900 and 1950", and 42 per cent.—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he started his comments rather well, but this is a narrow motion and he has strayed a long way from it.

Mr. McFall: The last thing that I would want is to be humiliated like the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth.
I was saying that 42 per cent. of the children got the answer wrong, so that did not assist the learning process.
I want to push the Government on the issue of league tables and crude statistics, but I do not have time to do so. Are the Government simply intent on raising test scores, or do they wish to help the learning process of children in United Kingdom, particularly Scottish, education? I do not have time to push that issue. I am aware of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of the fact that other Members want to speak, but I object strongly to the Government's action in stopping the business last night when we were debating the Bill clause by clause. It does nothing for parliamentary democracy, and it certainly does nothing for the education of children. Will the Government think again about some of their proposals?

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am sure that I am not alone in having wondered, during the guillotine motion debates that I have sat through in the five years in which I have been a Member of the House, about the whole issue of timetabling. I listened carefully to the words of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and

of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), but I am unconvinced about the case for timetabling.
In the unlikely event that the Conservative party is ever again in opposition—I do not expect that to happen in my lifetime—I wonder whether we would be willing to relinquish the power that untimetabled Bills undoubtedly give us. I would be suspicious of any suggestion about timetabling in general and would not welcome such collusion between the two Front Benches. It would further limit and diminish the influence and power of Back Benchers.
It is most important that any Government who seek to move a guillotine motion should have to justify to the House their reasons for doing so, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did this afternoon. The guillotine motion is richly deserved, because the events last night were a classic case for a guillotine. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend all yesterday's debates, but I served on the Committee, I have seen today's Hansard, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has kindly filled me in on the debate.
Although there have been mutterings about whether yesterday's business was influenced by the forthcoming election, the rumour circulating on this side of the House last night was that the Opposition wished to frustrate the Bill's chance of reaching the statute book before the election. That played a large part in yesterday's strategy. Equally, it was strongly suggested that the events in the Chamber yesterday afternoon bore no relation to the matter under discussion. Rather, they related to a discussion elsewhere about the business for next week and whether it suited the Opposition Front Bench.
I am perfectly satisfied that a most monstrous filibuster went on in the Chamber yesterday when a matter of great importance should have been debated. I am sure that the Government were right to table the guillotine motion.
The Bill was well and effectively discussed in Committee. I have not sat on many Committees, I suppose, but I cannot think of one that has been more constructive and more harmonious than the one that considered this Bill. We addressed many of the points that have been discussed this afternoon without the necessity of timetabling. We discussed the issues raised in the Bill, and we had enough time to do it. There was little difference between the two sides in Committee.
When the television cameras were absent, when not many people were in the Gallery and when we got down to discussing the issues, there was precious little between us. By the exercise of great restraint on the part of Conservative Back Benchers, we had a chance to listen with interest to the arguments put by Opposition Members and to the very convincing arguments put by those on the Government Front Bench.
So there are few serious points left for discussion, and the timetable allowed for the Bill, together with the time that could have been spent much more profitably yesterday, is about right.
Opposition Members ought to be extremely grateful to the Government for timetabling the Bill, because it hides a great embarrassment for them. On one of the key measures of the Bill—clause 16, league tables—there is a massive, public split on the Opposition Benches. It has already appeared in this debate, and it was evident in Committee.
On the one hand, we have the hon. Member for Blackburn, (Mr. Straw), who is broadly in favour of league tables and is on record as saying that he wants to see a thousand league tables bloom. When I introduced my ten-minute Bill, with strong support from my hon. Friends, he made it clear that this was not a measure with which he strongly disagreed. He is on record as supporting, in principle, league tables.
We have, on the other hand, the second tendency, personified in Committee by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who have been with us for most of the debate. They strongly oppose league tables and they set out clearly and concisely in Committee why they do not accept them. They did not vote according to their convictions but they set out their deep reservations about league tables.
A third tendency, closely allied to the second, is best epitomised by my own education authority in Nottinghamshire, where there is an odiously patronising attitude towards parents. The view of that authority, in hock, as so often, to some of the teacher unions, is that parents cannot be trusted with important information. If it is given to them, they will not use it responsibly or properly. As has been so ably demonstrated throughout the debate on the Bill, that is absolute nonsense and shows a complete lack of respect for the parents whom members of the authority are supposed to be helping, assisting and serving in discharging their duties as an education authority.
I will not attempt to test your patience on this matter today, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is extremely important that the Bill reaches the statute book as quickly as possible, and all those who have tried to promote league tables and emphasise the importance of getting more information to parents, to enable choice and opportunity in education, know this. The guillotine motion will ensure a speedy passage for the Bill through the House, and I look forward to its reaching the statute book.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I oppose the allocation of time motion because the four major clauses of the Bill, out of the 20 clauses which concern the Welsh Office, have scarcely been debated at any stage. In Committee they were given only a few minutes, because my right hon. Friend—I should not call him my right hon. Friend, but I can call him my friend —the Minister for State, Welsh Office (Sir W. Roberts) was not a member of the Committee and therefore could not speak with his customary authority on these matters, being as he is, the longest-serving Minister of State in the Government or probably in any other Government in the history of Parliament. So there was no proper debate of these issues.
It presents a serious problem for those who seek to defend the unitary state and the way in which legislation for England and Wales and, for that matter, Scotland is dealt with here.
Before I came here, I had to learn my constitutional theory. We debated these matters in the late 1970s, at the time of devolution. It looks as though we may have to debate them again, whatever the result of the forthcoming

election—and I can speak objectively because I am not standing at that election. I was taught that primary legislation is dealt with—scrutinised line by line—by the House of Commons; after Second Reading it goes to Committee and comes back to the House on Report. Secondary legislation—such as orders—is dealt with separately. The Welsh Office, being the Department of State responsible for nearly all education policy in Wales, then implements the primary legislation; but it is for Welsh hon. Members in the House, in London, to debate primary legislation as it affects Wales.
It is no news for me to announce in the House—I do it without fear of contradiction by the Secretary of State for Education and Science or by any other hon. Member—that there has been inadequate scrutiny of the four clauses of the Bill as they affect Her Majesty's inspectorate for Wales. That is why I feel confident that I am in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will not be subject to a "Pawsey"—our new term for someone who is often called to order by Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Although we have had inadequate debate, I should like to draw attention to the fact that creeping announcements, which might have formed a debate, have been emerging in Hansard. On Monday, there was a paragraph of an answer from the Minister of State on HMI in Wales, referring to its visits to 40 per cent. of primary schools and all secondary schools in Wales. We had an even longer answer —four pages of the best Welsh Office typescript—setting out the views of the Secretary of State on the future role of HMI. Unfortunately, I cannot detect, without reading between the lines of that answer—but I think that I am reading it correctly—what this actually means for the future numbers employed in HMI Wales.
I put this question on Second Reading in the form of an intervention and, quite rightly, the Secretary of State for Education and Science replied that the number of inspectors employed in Wales was a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales. I agree with him. Unfortunately, I have yet to receive an answer to my question.
The impression that I get from the long written answer is that there will be no change in the number of inspectors. The final paragraph of the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) says that the Secretary of State for Wales expects that
in due course there will be some overall reduction in the numbers of HMI engaged in work related to schools but it is not possible to be precise at this stage". [Official Report, 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 577.]
The rest of the answer talks of strengthening their independence, of their no longer being civil servants and of retaining existing terms and conditions; and it led me to the conclusion that there will not be a reduction of the present number of 60, made up of the chief inspector, eight staff inspectors and 51 inspectors, that we have at the moment. The Secretary of State is nodding. It might he helpful if I gave way to him.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hesitate to intervene in these matters, which, the hon. Gentleman and I agree, are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, but he is not in the position which I am in, with our senior chief inspector, of having calculated a figure for reduction in the anticipated establishment of HMI. In the circumstances of Wales, the Secretary of State has no such figure at present, although he anticipates that the change in role might in due course lead to some reduction.

Dr. Thomas: I am grateful for that intervention which, will, I hope, satisfy me and some of my friends in the inspectorate. I had better not say "some of my friends" because, although I shall be leaving the House at the election, I am not suggesting that I am available as a consultant to inspect adult education in Wales.
I do not say that there is a conspiracy between the Front Benches on allocation of time motions, but I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that, if we are to have serious debates on primary legislation we need an allocation of time for all Bills. That time must include some sort of block allocation to cater for minorities. It would not be right if the West Sussex minority had more attention in primary legislation than the Welsh minority or any other ethnic or national minority in these islands.
The Welsh Office may not want to advertise its policy too clearly, in case the Department of Education and Science finds out, as I think it has, that the Welsh Office is not pursuing the same policy on the inspectorate as is followed in England. English educationists might find out that the Welsh Office is not halving or privatising the inspectorate, or whatever words are being used. It might also not be in the interests of the Labour Front Bench to admit that the Welsh Office is pursuing consensus education policies that may well be more progressive than those of the Labour party in Wales.

Mr. Michael Brown: Much of the debate has concentrated on the problems of West Sussex. I shall not go down that road, except to say that my father is a councillor on West Sussex county council, and I have no doubt that he will give me an ear bashing similar to that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) to the Secretary of State. I should like to speak about a part of the country with which I am even more familiar than West Sussex—the county of Humberside. I shall deal with how clause 16 relates to schools in that county and, in particular, in my constituency.
I looked forward to yesterday's debate and at any time between 2 am and 4 am I would have been happy to speak to the amendments to clause 16. I was delighted to see the guillotine motion, because it seemed to point to two days of debate at a sensible time when we would have been able to give proper consideration to clause 16. The problem with the guillotine motion, is that it is all-embracing. Such motions sometimes enable two or three hours of debate on one clause followed by a debate of an hour or two on another.
I do not object to the idea of today's business being guillotined. However, I wish that the motion had allowed for certainty of debate on clause 16, which deals with information about schools. That is one of the major clauses in the Bill and will be of great benefit to parents in a constituency such as mine. If there had been a debate on it yesterday, I should have liked to speak to it. We need it because it encapsulates the problems in some schools in Grimsby and Cleethorpes which take children from my constituency. In the past week or two, some head teachers in my constituency refused to make the parents charter available to parents, and that document does nothing but draw attention to the rights of parents.

Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later, because, like me, he represents a Humberside constituency.
Thank goodness for the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, which, in an editorial a few days ago, drew the attention of its readers to a disgraceful situation. It said that it would take upon itself the responsibility for ensuring that parents would find out more information about their schools—

Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about some provincial evening newspaper rather than about the motion. I understood that he had to speak to the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman is right, and he is a short head in front of me: I was about to ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) what on earth this part of his speech has to do with the motion.

Mr. Brown: My point is that, but for clause 16, the opportunity to ensure that information is given to parents—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make on the motion the speech that he might have made if we had been discussing clause 16 stand part.

Mr. Brown: I accept that, but I wish to draw to the attention of the House the relevance of my remarks to the motion. It is vital that that local newspaper publishes information about schools, because head teachers refused to do so. That is an outrage to parents. Thank goodness the Bill will pass to another place. I look forward to the vote on the motion because it will ensure that parents and children in my constituency will have the opportunity to receive information about their schools.

Mr. Morley: The Grimsby Evening Telegraph is an excellent paper, surpassed only by the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph. The hon. Gentleman should know that local authorities are asking whether the parents charter is party political propaganda, outlawed by Government regulations. Humberside is quite right to be careful because it could be caught by the law for dishing out party political propaganda. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we had had a proper debate yesterday all these issues could have been discussed and we would not have needed the guillotine motion?

Mr. Brown: Cabinet rules are strict on such matters and the Central Office of Information ensures that certain guidelines are followed by the Government. It is clear that the pamphlet could not be distributed unless it complied with the rules that are clearly laid down in the civil service. How could anyone object to a simple statement of fact?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have had enough of that. Let us get back to the motion.

Mr. Brown: I have been in the Chamber for three hours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during which the Chair drew my attention to the fact that it would be in order to range reasonably widely as long as our remarks related to the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the hon. Gentleman's references to the parents charter. I hope that he will not dispute my ruling.

Mr. Brown: I would not dream of ever doing that. I shall simply draw the House's attention to one simple fact. The motion must be passed quickly to ensure that the Bill proceeds as soon as possible to another place. That will ensure that parents have the right to information about their children and that no head teacher will be able to stand in their way.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I often speak after the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and often feel that he is filibustering even when he makes a serious speech. In this debate, he did exactly that. However, he has been beaten today by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), because his speech was a filibuster if ever there was one.
Well over 80 new clauses and amendments in 26 groups were tabled for discussion. Normally one can expect at least an hour for proper discussion of each group of amendments. The Minister's opening speech usually takes about half an hour, and when the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has had his say, there is not much time left for Back Benchers. Yesterday, we had before us 26 groups of amendments, which could have meant about 26 hours of debate. The debate that we did have was very much shorter.
I spoke for only three minutes, so I was not filibustering. Indeed, I had some very important points to make. In addition, I wanted to say some very important things about later clauses, but will now be prevented from doing so. The Government panicked at 10 o'clock last night, when they realised that they would not get the Bill through. I vehemently oppose this measure. I opposed it vehemently in Committee and will continue to do so. The Bill is flawed and should never have been put before the House and the country. It might have been improved a little with some new clauses, but the guillotine makes that impossible.
The proposed reorganisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate is fundamentally flawed. The question of private inspectors is without doubt being pursued for the sake of political dogma. It has nothing to do with education. In addition to the political dogma, there is now the fact that we are being prevented from discussing the proposals. The Bill will pass to another place without fair discussion of the ways in which it could have been improved. There is no doubt that improvement could have been achieved by some of the very reasonable new clauses that have been tabled.
I make no bones about the fact that I object to the league tables and to the use of raw data about schools. Neither parents, teachers nor pupils will derive any benefit from this system. Education itself will be undermined. During the three or four weeks of Committee debate, we identified at least eight areas in which major amendment is needed, but we are now to be prevented from discussing those. Let me outline some of the areas that we shall be prevented from discussing. First, all inspectors—from chief inspector down—should hold the status of qualified teacher, with experience in education in England or Wales and, as appropriate, knowledge of the Welsh language.
During the Select Committee's deliberations, the Secretary of State told us that he was quite prepared to have the local butcher as an inspector of state schools. If that is not political dogma, I do not know what is. The fact is that the Secretary of State does not give a damn about state education. He never has given a damn. He is not bothered about who inspects schools. He even says that the local butcher could do the job. But that is something that we shall not be able to discuss today, and in respect of which we shall not be able to put the Bill right.
Secondly, we shall not be able to discuss the fact that inspectors should be registered to inspect schools of the categories to which their qualifications relate, and that they should have relevant experience. Nursery inspectors will be able to inspect secondary schools, and secondary inspectors will be able to inspect nursery schools. What does a secondary inspector know about nursery schools? Nothing at all. Under the Bill, any inspector will be able to inspect any sector of the curriculum.
Thirdly, effective inspection of education necessitates an independent HMI, free from political control or manipulation. Inspectors must have power to report on all aspects of education policy in England and Wales. Fourthly, all inspectors should be subject to a code of practice. Fifthly, the coherence of local education authorities' provision of schools inspection will be undermined by the imposition of competition. [Interruption.] Every time I make a speech, I am pressurised. Let me assure the House that I shall try to finish very shortly.
My sixth area of concern relates to the fact that there must be safeguards to protect confidential information relating to individuals. Seventhly, inspectors should take account of the quality and effectiveness of the education provided by each school and of the resources provided for each school. My final point is that league tables made up of raw data have no place in a high-quality education service and will undermine our children's educational opportunities.
In Committee, the Government failed to pay attention to these flaws, and by using the guillotine tonight they are doing it again. We are being prevented from debating the Bill properly or altering it.

Mr. Jack Straw: In two respects, this has been a revealing debate. First, despite all the Government's charges of filibustering, Conservative Members have today spoken for 65 minutes, whereas Opposition Members have spoken for 33 minutes—half the time taken by Government Members.
Yesterday we had the spectacle of the Secretary of State filibustering in the debate on his own Bill. He made the longest speech. Today we have had an even more interesting spectacle. Although Conservative Members have taken up twice as much time as Opposition Members, most of their speeches have been in opposition to the Bill. Yesterday, half the Conservative Members who spoke opposed the Government's proposals.
But the real reason for the Government's panic last night and their decision to railroad the Bill through the House today is the intensity of the opposition to it, not only from the Opposition but from Conservative Members. In this regard, I commend the hon. Member for


Chichester (Mr. Nelson) for his courage and eloquence. In a forensic speech, he simply destroyed the whole structure of the measure.
One of the reasons for our great regret at this guillotine motion is that we shall not have an opportunity to debate new clauses 10 and 20, which propose the establishment of an education standards commission to take over the work of the inspectorate and to supervise and direct the work of local inspectors. We are convinced that our policy for the future of inspection is robust. One of the reasons for our being so convinced is that the Secretary of State has to invent our policy every time he seeks to attack it.
A year ago, I commented on the problems of Culloden school in east London. The Culloden saga raises a very much larger question, which the Government have so far failed to address. I refer to the lack of any coherent system in England for the effective and consistent monitoring of school standards and teaching methods. I went on to speak of the haphazard national inspection arrangements, which are mirrored by even more haphazard local arrangements.
Then I spelled out the fact that Labour would establish an education standards commission, which, contrary to the canards, the inventions, of the Secretary of State, would ensure separate inspection services and would provide not only that schools were inspected on a regular basis in accordance with a set national standard but—to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Chichester—that the best practice of authorities like the hon. Member's would be reflected in the practice of all authorities.
I do not approve of the fact that some authorities do not make provision for the proper and regular inspection of their schools. I reject that attitude, whether the authority concerned is Labour or Conservative. Under the aegis of an education standards commission, we shall ensure that every local authority has inspection arrangements that conform to a national and uniform standard. That standard will come into effect only with the approval of a national standards commission whose members are nominated by the Secretary of State and are approved by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, which reports to this House.
We also object to the guillotine because of the insufficient time which it gives the House to debate the measure. The Bill dismembers Her Majesty's inspectorate and reduces it in size from 480 to 175. Because it is effectively being cut by more than half, there is no way in which the inspectorate can effectively supervise the arrangements which the Secretary of State proposes for a privatised local schools inspectorate.
A point made forcefully yesterday by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) was that, contrary to the suggestion of the Secretary of State, the new HMI will not be independent but will become the creature of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State came close to misleading the House yesterday when he talked about independence and said that the new HMI might have to have regard to the directions of the Secretary of State. As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury pointed out, under clause 2(5) the senior chief inspector has no discretion, The Secretary of State may direct that he shall have regard to such aspects of Government policy on education or anything else as the Secretary of State determines. That, as well as the fact that the strength of the inspectorate is being reduced, undermines his integrity and independence.
There are three other aspects in which the Bill is fatally flawed. The smaller inspectorate cannot conceivably supervise the 3,000 or 4,000 local privatised inspectors who are expected to do the job. In a radio interview last year, the Secretary of State referred to
a whole new system of inspection, with inspectors, all of whom will have to be registered with HMI and all of whom will have to have a little lion stamp of quality given to them by a central Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
He also said that they would carry out 6,000 inspections per year.
The statement that all inspectors would have to be registered and would have to have a lion stamp of quality was untrue. It is only the heads of the privatised firms who will need to be registered with HMI. As to the rest, the Secretary of State admitted in evidence to the Select Committee that even a local butcher might do the job. What is astonishing about the Bill is that it specifies that some members of the inspection team should have no qualification.
The second fundamental flaw in the Bill is that the provider will pick the regulator. [Interruption.] This has everything to do with the guillotine. The Secretary of State wishes to truncate discussion and cannot provide an answer as to why he has come forward with a bizarre scheme under which the governing bodies of schools to be inspected will pick and pay their own inspectors.
I have asked a question of the Secretary of State three times, and he was asked it again three times on television. Each time he has failed to answer. I will ask him the question again; this will be the last chance to put it to him because of the guillotine.
Under Conservative policy for the regulation of public services, the Conservative Administration has insisted that, regulators are wholly independent and at arm's length from providers. That is why the Government insisted on appointing Oftel as a separate body from British Telecom, and why the Secretary of State voted that the Audit Commission and not local authorities should appoint auditors for local authorities. It is why the Secretary of State, as Health Secretary, refused the application of opt-out trust hospitals to be allowed to appoint their own auditors; he insisted that the Audit Commission should do that job. Yet under the Bill, the Secretary of State is allowing the provider of a service to pick and choose its own regulator.
For the seventh time, I ask the Secretary of State whether there is any parallel in the experience of the Conservative Administration for a public service provider being allowed to pick and pay its own regulator.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: For the seventh time, I will answer. This seems to be the only serious question which the hon. Gentleman can think of asking in the course of these filibustering proceedings. Our proposal is for independent inspectors, approved by HMI, who are separate from and independent of the schools. A school will seek tenders from two inspectors and will choose one to make an independent inspection.
The proposal of the Labour party is that the providers, the local authorities, should be the only people empowered to inspect. It is Labour party policy that the providers inspect the providers. That seems to be the only issue which the hon. Gentleman can think of on the Bill. He is going back to his Second Reading speech, which he has


made umpteen times before. He gives no indication of which amendments he wishes to talk about. He has run out of things to raise on the measure.

Mr. Straw: Every hon. Member in the House and many people outside will have heard that complete evasion of the question which I put to the Secretary of State. He has no answer, because there is no answer. There is no parallel to the measure in the experience of the Conservative Administration. It is eccentric even in terms of the awful experience of the Administration. Never before have they slipped down the path of allowing providers to pick their own regulators. We hope that they will never do so again. We know why the Secretary of State does not want the Bill discussed and why he seeks to avoid discussing it in public. No one understands how a system under which schools individually can pick and pay their own inspectors can lead to consistent standards of inspection.
The last fundamental flaw in the measure is that there is no provision for the inspection of a school in the middle of the four-year cycle of privatised company inspections which the Bill provides for. It is as though the Secretary of State thinks that, once he has the cycle running, problems in schools will emerge only once every four years, timed conveniently to fit in with the visit of the privatised company inspectors.
Serious points have been raised by the hon. Members for Chichester for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames), by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and by a great many Conservative authorities. What if the authority wants to do better than the privatised system of inspection which the Bill proposes? There has been no clear answer.
All we have heard from the Secretary of State is waffle about the other powers which local authorities may have, without any explanation of why he is removing the power of local authorities to inspect schools. If he is saying that they have other powers to inspect, and that they can inspect at any time, why is it necessary to remove section 77(3) which gives them an implicit power to inspect? If they have all those powers, and if they can go in at any time to inspect, why remove that power?
I think that the Secretary of State's explanation is that he does not want local authorities to duplicate the four-yearly cycle of inspection. He is nodding assent. He cannot have it both ways. If he is saying that, despite the removal of section 77(3), local authorities have power to duplicate inspections in the four-yearly cycle, he has no reason to remove section 77(3).
The truth, which is known by the Secretary of State's officials and by every local authority, including those that are otherwise benign towards this Administration, is that the removal of section 77(3) and the restrictions in clause 15 of the Bill will mean that authorities will have neither the power to inspect between inspections nor the money to pay for those inspections.
The consequence is that the Bill will become a charter for low and lowering standards in schools. It means that, if a problem arises in a school and the authority, against the wishes of the governing body, believes that a school should be the subject of an inspection, apart from a reserve power in the hands of HMCI, nothing can happen to that

school. All that will happen is that the problems will get worse and may fester for up to four years. The Secretary of State has to address that problem much more seriously.
I will tell hon. Members why the Secretary of State is so resistant. He knows that the consequence is that schools will go uninspected and unsupervised for four years—in other words, for the lifetime of children in an infants school. So why is the Secretary of State refusing to allow the local authorities to have any serious role? I will tell my hon. Friends why. It is because he has a hatred of local authorities.
We have seen that hatred in other respects, including his removal of local authorities from health authorities and of any local authority role in respect of further education. We know from the hostility that, I am afraid to say, the Secretary of State shows to Conservative authorities that he dislikes and despises the idea that locally elected people should be there to speak up for the voters about the education service in their area.
It is ironic that we are debating a guillotine motion on a Bill which dismembers Her Majesty's inspectorate after 150 years of fine service to education on the day of the publication of the last fully independent report—if the Government were elected—of Her Majesty's inspectorate. The report spells out the need for a much stronger and more effective inspectorate, for it shows that 30 per cent. of children in our primary and secondary schools continue to receive a raw deal. It shows that standards have not improved in the past year and did not improve in the previous two years.
The Government have been in power for 13 years. They have introduced three major education Bills—in 1980, 1986 and 1988. In none of those Bills did they seek to do anything to reform the ramshackle arrangements for school inspection. So, in a panic and in their dying days, the Government are pushing through this ill-considered, crackpot measure to privatise the local schools inspectorates and destroy HMI.
The Bill will lead only to lower standards. There is no mandate for it. There is no justification for railroading it through. We shall oppose it in the Lobby tonight and repeal it on entry to office.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the parents charter. It makes new arrangements for regular four-yearly inspections of all schools, reporting back to parents, and new inspections for comparative tables of performance not only in examinations but in terms of truancy and staying on rates, destination of pupils and so on.
The way in which we have conducted our debates in the past day and a half so far of our proceedings, will make the public feel that the parents charter has been debated in a curious way by the House of Commons on Report. Indeed, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that the readers of the Grimsby Evening Telegraph will probably have a clearer notion of what changes parents will experience than some people who read part of Hansard, because, although both sides originally agreed that one day was sufficient for the Report and Third Reading of the Bill, we have found it


necessary to move a timetable motion to get the proceedings back on the rails and finish them in reasonable time. That is because of what happened yesterday evening.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Leader of the House, spoke at the beginning of the debate. He was not present during the proceedings yesterday.

Dr. Cunningham: Neither was the Leader of the House.

Mr. Clarke: Neither was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but he was better advised about what occurred. [Interruption.] The absence of the hon. Member for Copeland yesterday is the only possible explanation for his disingenuousness. With an almost straight face, he tried several times to pretend that there was no filibuster yesterday evening. There is no point in our lingering on the matter, because the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) plainly acknowledged at 10 o'clock last night that there had been a filibuster.
We conducted our proceedings in a curious way. We began with new clause 1, which was moved by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). At one point she agreed with me that we were discussing—

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: No. Let me explain. The hon. Gentleman needs to be better informed about what happened yesterday.
New clause I dealt with a narrow but undoubtedly important point about complaints. It gave rise to a three-hour debate, in which just about every aspect of inspection of schools was discussed. With great ingenuity, all those who spoke kept within order. We had a debate which, had it not been in order, might have sounded like a Second Reading debate on inspection of schools and the parents charter. It was rather reminiscent of the debate that we have just had. I am glad to say that my hon. Friends who represent West Sussex were particularly successful on both occasions in giving enormous amounts of careful and detailed attention to what is known as the West Sussex question.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will give way in a second. It is the hon. Gentleman's time that we are taking.
I then replied to the long three-hour debate. I replied with courtesy to every hon. Member who had spoken, including the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who had made a long speech about a new clause which did not apply to Scotland or Dumbarton. I was repeatedly intervened upon. If the hon. Member for Copeland reads the proceedings, he will see that, when I began to realise what was going on, I declined to give way when several hon. Members sought to intervene. I said in my simple way, as my usual trusting and naive self, that I was not sure whether the Bill was being filibustered, but that I would not allow the debate to go on any longer.
I answered all the points raised in that debate. Indeed, they were the same points that the hon. Member for Blackburn has just raised. After that, it became obvious that there was a filibuster, because the next three hours went by with meandering progress through the remainder of the Bill.

Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: Wait a minute. The hon. Gentleman has had his turn. I am about to refer to him. If I give way too often, I shall be accused of speaking for too long.
The hon. Member for Blackburn, who has just sought to intervene in my speech again, described what would have happened if we had not brought proceedings to an end. He said of the Government:
If they had been willing to debate these matters through the night, as we were, and then to ensure that there was sufficient time next week, they would have got their Bill, but the truth is that they are now in total panic over this measure. They know that even with the guillotine tomorrow they have no chance of getting the Bill through the other place and then back here if an election is called for 9 April."—[0fficial Report, 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1040.]
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was trying to speak about the Bill as near to for ever as he could make it, and certainly into next week. He had mistakenly calculated that in that way he might prevent the Bill from completing its stages and receiving Royal Assent before the general election.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: In a moment. There could be no other purpose of yesterday's proceedings. I give way to the hon.
Member for Copeland. I hope that he realises that he is taking part in a debate which timetables a discussion which was filibustered in a fairly ridiculous fashion by the Opposition.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for eventually giving way. Ministers' definition of filibuster seems to be rather like their definition of recession—something that was not occurring. I read the statistics into the record because, like the Leader of the House, I can also read Hansard. All the interventions and speeches made by Conservative Members are on the record for the Secretary of State to see. There was no question of filibuster on this side of the House. Again today, twice as much time has been taken up by Conservative Members as Opposition Members. Who is filibustering?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman cannot continue to deny that there was a filibuster—although he did so with apparent success in keeping a straight face—when I have just read out his hon. Friend's description of the Opposition's filibustering purposes.
If the Opposition had told us today that they did not wish to debate the timetable motion, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would have moved it on the nod and we could have gone straight into the debate and had six and a half hours' further discussion of the amendments. But they did not. The Opposition decided to debate the timetable motion and use up the time for debate on the Bill. The reason is that if we had had a full and proper debate yesterday until 10 pm and then had another debate today until 10 pm, we would have had far more time on Report than the Opposition ever contemplated requiring or previously asked for. I have come to the conclusion that they do not wish to proceed to most of the amendments, because they have been exhaustively considered in Committee already or because they have been raised with ingenuity in the course of yesterday's debate on new clause 1 or in today's debate.
I was looking forward to debating new clause 10, which was the only other new clause that I intended to debate. The hon. Member for Blackburn has recklessly tabled what he says is the Labour party's policy on education. I


do not believe that the Labour party has a policy on education worthy of the name. He was going to debate this amazing quango that the Opposition want to set up to do all the things that the Government keep thinking of and are bringing forward now. I suspect that the reason the hon. Gentleman has kept this debate going until after 7 o'clock is that he has realised that, if he is not careful, we shall reach it and have the chance of discussing, in order, precisely what the Labour party is putting forward, the pathetic rabbit of an idea that it has been peddling for far too long in response to our reforms.
The one point that has been raised persistently today is what I call the West Sussex question—the question of the rights of entry of local authorities and how far the new statutory arrangements for comprehensive four-year inspections and reporting back to parents might exclude other rights of entry or other inspection arrangements of the kind in West Sussex.
Yesterday, two of my right hon. and hon. Friends from West Sussex joined in and raised this point. Today, two more have raised it. They are all in their places now: my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). Yesterday, they were joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) and today by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), who has also raised the question of league tables.
The pretence by the hon. Member for Blackburn that my Back-Bench colleagues are in some way agreeing with the Labour party's policy and going along with his attempt to drive a coach and horses through the Bill by providing for a local authority monopoly of inspection of local authority schools is ridiculous. This is a complete and utter myth. They are raising, as supporters of the Bill, the question of what will happen to other rights of entry and other systems of inspection.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is anxious to use more time. Presumably he will claim that I have been making very long speeches. He need not worry. He will have plenty of opportunities to stop us reaching new clause 10. The standing commission will not be reached. He does not have to be so troubled. The Labour party's policy, which would take only a couple of minutes of our time if debated seriously, is not likely to be reached. He will find other ways of stamping on that debate.
When it comes to rights of entry, I have already repeatedly made it clear to the hon. Member for Blackburn and others that all local authorities will retain clear rights of entry where they are exercising a statutory duty or at the invitation for any purpose of the governors or the head teachers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West and my other right hon. and hon. Friends from West Sussex have asked about these rights of entry. I will not set them all out. Where statutory duties are concerned, they are very wide ranging. Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, they have a right to require entry to check up on health and safety.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate is about a guillotine. It has nothing to do with the various aspects of the Bill. I hope that you will rule accordingly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A number of hon. Members have gone very wide, including the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). None the less, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would take account of what has been said.

Mr. Clarke: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it really is rather perverse. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester spoke for 35 minutes, completely in order, on the West Sussex question and we had several detailed exchanges on this. If I am allowed to say that the timetable motion will still permit us to discuss this if we make good progress on the rest of the rubbish on the amendment paper, to which I do not think that the Opposition seriously intend us to move on, they will discover that there are rights of entry under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, under section 37 of the Education Reform Act 1988, under sections 2 and 4 of the Education Act 1987, and so on. Any statutory duty enables a local authority to intervene. There can also be intervention at the request of the governors. The kind of arrangements described as existing in West Sussex, as I have repeatedly said, do not appear to me to be in any way threatened by the Bill.
The comprehensive four-year inspection for which the Bill provides is quite different from the annual visits to look at particular aspects of activities carried out in West Sussex now. If the schools invite the local authorities to come in, the West Sussex inspections will continue. If a situation arises in which, for some reason, the governors of a school do not want the local authority to enter, there are still grounds, if the Acts to which I have referred are consulted—where there are serious educational problems or doubts about the application of the curriculum—on which the LEA can enter under a statutory duty and ensure that all is well.
The other effect of our proceedings which, like my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes, I regret is that we will not be able to get on to those parts of the Bill that refer to the so-called league tables—comparative tables of examination results, truancy rates, staying-on rates and destinations of pupils. It has become clear yesterday and today that one anxiety of the Opposition is so to conduct those proceedings that we never get on to the discussion of that particularly attractive proposition. Until a few months ago, it was the position of Labour local authorities throughout the country and, as far as I am aware, of the official Labour party that they were against the production of such information for parents—that the whole thing should remain secret.
No, I will not have the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) shaking his finger at me. He came in to keep this show going yesterday evening and read out his constituency correspondence in order to fill up a little time in the course of one of the new clause debates. That was not a filibuster, according to the hon. Member for Copeland. It was a perfectly reasonable speech in the context of the proceedings, of the kind that the hon. Gentleman invited me to make.
The Opposition's conduct will stop us discussing league tables. That is because they used to be against them, although some of their Front-Bench Members seemed to be in favour of them, but their Back Benchers, whenever they intervened, continued to attack the whole principle of making performance information available to parents and to the public in general. That is what lies behind the conduct of these proceedings. That is why we need the timetable motion. The Opposition have discussed all the details of the Bill and talked themselves to exhaustion. There are no remaining issues that they wish to present. They do not want to discuss league tables because they think that they are attractive to the general public. They do not want to reveal the fact that they have many backwoodsmen who would still prefer to keep all this information secret.
The Opposition are in confusion over inspection and they wish to conceal the fact that they are seeking to preserve the monopoly right of local authorities to inspect their own schools. They are against outside experts, approved by Her Majesty's inspectorate, who do not work for local authorities coming in and inspecting local authority schools and reporting back to the parents. Hon. Gentlemen have therefore resorted to these procedural devices to make sure that no further constructive debate takes place.
However, we still have some time for debate. The Opposition have used up the best part of three hours by choosing to debate the timetable motion. If they wish to prove me wrong, and they have any sensible contribution left to make, they have more than ample time within which to do so if the House agrees to support the timetable motion, which the absurd antics of the Opposition yesterday have forced the Government to resort to, to enable the Bill to be dealt with properly.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 183.

Division No. 61]
[7.19 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Aitken, Jonathan
Browne, John (Winchester)


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Amess, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Conway, Derek


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cran, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowis, John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Devlin, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Dicks, Terry


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony





Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lord, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Fallon, Michael
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Farr, Sir John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Favell, Tony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Madel, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maples, John


Freeman, Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mates, Michael


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maude, Hon Francis


Gill, Christopher
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miller, Sir Hal


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mills, lain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Moate, Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Gregory, Conal
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Sir Charles


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Christopher
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hayward, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hind, Kenneth
Portillo, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Price, Sir David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Raffan, Keith


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Redwood, John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Irvine, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jackson, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Janman, Tim
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knapman, Roger
Shelton, Sir William


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Latham, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speller, Tony






Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stern, Michael
Ward, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, Sir John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thorne, Neil
Winterton, Nicholas


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Irvine Patrick.


Walden, George





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Anderson, Donald
Fatchett, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fisher, Mark


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Flannery, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flynn, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Beckett, Margaret
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bell, Stuart
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bellotti, David
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benton, Joseph
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Gould, Bryan


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Thomas


Blair, Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Hain, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Caborn, Richard
Haynes, Frank


Callaghan, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cartwright, John
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Cummings, John
Janner, Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Dixon, Don
Lamond, James


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Leadbitter, Ted


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Leighton, Ron


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Enright, Derek
Litherland, Robert





Livingstone, Ken
Parry, Robert


Livsey, Richard
Patchett, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Primarolo, Dawn


Loyden, Eddie
Quin, Ms Joyce


McAllion, John
Redmond, Martin


McCartney, Ian
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


McCrea, Rev William
Robertson, George


Macdonald, Calum A.
Robinson, Geoffrey


McFall, John
Rogers, Allan


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Rooney, Terence


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McMaster, Gordon
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meacher, Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert N.


Mowlam, Marjorie
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Nellist, Dave
Winnick, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wray, Jimmy


O'Brien, William



O'Hara, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Paisley, Rev Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(2) Stand Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Order of proceedings

2. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Dilatory Motions

3. No dilatory Motions with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on the allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Private business

4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;


(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

6.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

7. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

8.—(1) Reference in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

9. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Education (Schools) Bill.

Orders of the Day — Education (Schools) Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [29 January] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), That the clause (Additional provisions with regard to inspection teams) be read a Second time—
'( ).—(1) The Chief Inspector may determine that a person who has completed a course of training in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 is in need of supervision, induction or probation and he shall maintain a list (the "Conditionally Approved List") of the names of such persons.

(2) Without prejudice to the power of the chief Inspector to register a person subject to conditions under subsection 10(5)(c), the Chief Inspector may in particular impose conditions which determine the circumstances in which a person whose name is entered on the list maintained under subsection (1) may be a member of an inspection team for the purposes of Schedule 2.'.—[Ms. Armstrong.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I remind the House that we are also considering the following amendments: No. 62, in clause 10, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
'(6A) Nothing in this section is to be taken as preventing the Chief Inspector from imposing conditions under subsection (5)(c) which determine the eligibility of persons acting as a member of an inspection team assisting the registered inspector in conducting an inspection in addition to the provisions regarding such eligibility mentioned in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act.'.
No. 10, in schedule 2, page 19, line 17, at end insert—

'5A.—(1) The Chief Inspector shall not admit to a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) any person, not being a registered inspector, who in his opinion is not a fit or proper person for the purpose of carrying out an inspection.
(2)Any person admitted to a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) or 5(1) shall be excluded from it if, in the opinion of the Chief Inspector, he is unlikely to qualify for a certificate under sub-paragraph (3).
(3) Any person who has completed a course provided or arranged under paragraph 4(1) and 5(1) and who, in the opinion of the Chief Inspector, is adequately trained for the purpose of carrying out inspections under this Act, shall receive a certificate to this effect.
(4) No person shall carry out an inspection under this Act unless he has received a certificate under sub-paragraph (3).'.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Before I was rudely interrupted 21 hours ago, I was trying to conclude my comments on new clause 6, referring particularly to the excellent arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowlsey, South (Mr. O'Hara). He raised five points which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science will no doubt answer.
My hon. Friend spoke of the process of selecting inspectors, the training of registered inspectors, the cascading of training, not only to team leaders, but to other members of the team, the breadth and skills of the inspection team and the finance and support for training. Those points all relate to standards and ensuring not only that we have high standard inspection teams, but that the standards are regular and consistent across the whole education system.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science spoke earlier of what he called the West Sussex question. I note that when he raised that question he soon dropped it and failed to answer it. He does not seem to have done too well on the standard assessment test at that stage. The West Sussex question is crucial because it is about how a local authority, providing good quality inspection, can maintain its system. That does not relate only to West Sussex, but to many other parts of the country.
The Government's proposed system lacks two essential features. The first is a guarantee about the standards of inspectors and inspection; the second is any system of management to follow up that process of inspection.
The hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) made powerful arguments against the Bill and its proposals. It is clear that the Bill has little support among Conservatives in shire counties with responsibility for education. It is also true that the Bill has little support among Conservative Back Benchers. We saw that yesterday, as few of them were prepared to speak in the debate to support Ministers.
The Government are isolated on the issue because there is no guarantee of quality or standards. At a time when we know from HMI's annual report that about one third of children are having a raw deal from the education system, it is necessary to have an inspection system that guarantees high and consistent standards. That is why we tabled new clause 6. I hope that the Minister will answer the question how we are to ensure that standard and consistency of inspection.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall speak on this important matter as I have often been the subject of inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors and have in my family someone who has been a distinguished inspector of schools, universities, and other branches of higher and further education for almost 40 years. I am therefore close to the work of Her Majesty's inspectors throughout their long history.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I could not understand why the standards so well set by Her Majesty's inspectors could not continue under the device established by the Bill. I think that it is reasonable to assume that the inspection teams will comprise people with gumption who have a proper understanding of how schools operate, the tasks that teachers face, how schools respond to educational and curriculum challenges, as well as the challenges posed by the locality in which they operate.
If we cannot assume that the teams established as a result of the Bill cannot respond to the demands placed on them, which I have partly described, we might as well pack up. I do not see why the devices set out in the Bill—linking members of Her Majesty's inspectors to the new teams to show them the way, and train and assist them in their tasks—should not work. There is no reason why the teams established by the Bill should not improve considerably with time because they will work so hard and so consistently.
The team members will not have to work partly in schools, partly in offices, partly in Whitehall and partly in other parts of the country as Her Majesty's inspectors have always had to and still do. Instead, they will be on the job most of the time, which of itself will ensure that the teams

achieve continually improving standards. That will provide the sort of guarantee that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said was not in the Bill.
The fact that they are doing the job, and were prepared to do it when they began, will ensure continuity and guarantee consistency. It will also guarantee that parents and schools have the sort of information that such inspections should produce and to which the public are entitled. So the pessimism of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central is misplaced.
It is wrong to think that only professional experts in school matters can be inspectors. Historically, that is not the case. Some of the greatest headmasters and headmistresses have come from outside the profession. We in the profession did not like it when, for example, Dame Margaret Miles was appointed by the inner London education authority as headmistress of Mayfields school. We thought that she could not possibly do the job, not having been a teacher. In the event, though having come from outside, she proved a most successful head, ILEA having made a good appointment in that case.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed many matters concerning education over 10 years as members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. I am staggered by what he has said and feel sure that, if he and I were still teaching—we taught for many years—he would be one of the first to object to what is proposed by the Government in the Bill. Schools will be advertising for teams to inspect them. I suppose that, if a team produces a good report, it will be hired again. Perhaps one group of inspectors will prove cheaper to employ than another. Having been a teacher for so many years, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can agree with what is proposed, because it is alien to everything educational. It introduces the market place in the classroom.

Mr. Greenway: I do not see it that way. Why should schools opt for the shoddy and unsatisfactory? I assure the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have discussed education in all its aspects over the years, that I would have been happy for school heads to be elected by teachers, rather than appointed by governors. I cannot imagine teachers employing a head who was soft or who could not do the job. After all, as a teacher, one would suffer greatly if one appointed a head who was not up to the task.
Despite our resistance to the appointment of Dame Margaret Miles—I can recall others, but I will not go into that now—she came from outside the profession and became a very good head indeed. There was no point in our complaining that she had not been in the classroom prior to being appointed. As I say, she turned out to be a successful head.
People who have not taught or worked in schools in the way that we have can still know what schools are about and what standards should be achieved. We shall not have ridiculous people appointed to teams. If people are appointed who cannot do the job, they will not survive as team members, so I have confidence in the device proposed by the Bill. Although the hon. Member for Leeds, Central spoke with integrity, his comments were misplaced. It is a pity to challenge in advance the teams who will do the job. They have every chance of being satisfactory and making an increasingly valuable contribution to our schools.
The fact that schools will be inspected once every four years—instead of once every 200 years, as has notionally been the case hitherto—represents an improvement. In any event, we no longer want the sort of school inspections that in my experience, used to take place, with lofty HMI teams coming in, not making proper contact with teachers and filling everyone with dread. That type of inspection was not of the highest value. The inspectors did not get through to the needs of the teachers and the problems of the children. While they may have understood the needs, they did not communicate adequately with teachers in the most helpful ways. For all those reasons, I support the Bill's inspection proposals, which are sound and should be given every opportunity to work.

Mr. Derek Enright: I was a teacher for 20 years. I taught under Conservative local authorities in Surrey and the old West Riding, and latterly under a Labour-controlled authority in Wakefield metropolitan district. In all three authorities I found the inspection service thoroughly satisfactory and extremely helpful. That goes for the local authority service and the essential back-up of HMI.
I have the highest regard for the HMI, which is composed of men and women of integrity, perspicacity and, above all, honesty. I have never shared the fears of HMI that some have expressed. On several occasions, I collaborated with the inspectors because I found them totally helpful and constructive. When pursuing what might be described as something of a wild educational idea, they would put it down quite rapidly and were good at pointing out the error of one's ways, but doing so in a positive way.
So I greatly regret the passing of the inspectorate. Indeed, I cannot understand how the Government could have got themselves into the position of heedlessly throwing away a jewel in the educational crown. I could not understand it until I looked into the backgrounds of the three Ministers responsible. I discovered that they have in common something that may make them antipathetic towards local education authorities. They all went to schools which were members of the Headmasters' Conference.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) went to Epsom college, of which I have fond memories, because there was a strong Young Socialist group there who campaigned to get me appointed to the local council in Epsom. Alas, the group was not entirely successful, and I should make it clear that the Under-Secretary was not a member of that Young Socialist group at that time. The college motto is "Deo non fortuna", which may be translated roughly as, "My God, you must help us because nothing else will." That is precisely what the Ministers concerned must be saying about this measure.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), went to Winchester. "Manners makyth man" is the motto there, and we know some of the strange men whom Winchester has produced. We need not now go into the eccentric views of life that some of them have. Nothing they do bears any relationship to their experience of Her Majesty's inspectorate.
The Secretary of State attended Nottingham high school, "Lauda finem" being its motto, a good translation

of which might be, "Thank God it's finished." That is precisely what the Secretary of State has been saying constantly—that he wants discussion of the Bill over and out of the way. He wants no argument or discussion. That is a disgraceful aim, because the antipathy to LEAs is destroying a valuable asset.
I accept that some LEAs are stronger than others, just as some areas of the country are richer than others. It is one of the laws of life that some are bound to be better than others; they cannot all be exactly the same. By and large, however—under both Labour and Conservative control—authorities try to do a good job, and are able to keep their feet on the ground. That is why the advisory and inspection services have been so valuable at the lower level.
I do not shrink from the Secretary of State's sneers about the local inspectorate. Of course some inspectors and advisers will not be as strong as others, but, on the whole, they have proved to be well qualified for their tasks. Before appointing them, we have looked for the qualities that will help to raise education standards.
The old West Riding education committee was Conservative-controlled. That doughty lady, Mrs. Fitzpatrick, is a great supporter of the Conservative party, and in her day was a leading light of that party in Yorkshire. Under her leadership, the inspection and advisory service flourished: it proved helpful in many ways, and was always available not only to give advice about school subjects, but to engage in troubleshooting.
Troubleshooting was certainly required—especially when that great Conservative-controlled education committee was setting up comprehensives, which it did so successfully. The Secretary of State said earlier that he wondered why Labour opposed league tables. I am not worried about proper league tables; if the Secretary of State wants to be put in one, he should compare the school that he attended with those attended by his junior Ministers. I suppose that, in comparison with Epsom and Winchester, his school is in division 4, northern selection. A school will prove itself within a community—good or bad.
When I was helping to set up a new comprehensive in Featherstone in my constituency—where I spent the past 12 years teaching—we had to compete with the existing grammar schools. There were eight for pupils to choose from. In the end, the pupils voted with their feet; not because we had published spurious league tables, but because the local community knew that we were damned good, and that their children would be treated better in a comprehensive school than they would have been in the old grammar schools.
That was largely because grammar schools were very suspicious of inspectors: they did not like to let them in. What happened under the streaming on which the Secretary of State is so keen? The A stream did all right; half the B stream did okay; the C stream was often consigned to the dustbin. And we are talking about the top 15 per cent.—the ones who were chosen.
Time and again, inspectors and advisers said that grammar schools would have to change their ways, because they were destroying people. The grammar schools took no notice. In the comprehensive system, we did take notice: we considered a mixture of setting and banding. It was the local advisers who helped us to set up that system, which sent far more people to university than the previous arrangements.
My real worry about the inspectorate is this. Three Ministers will be putting a political complexion on what the inspectors do—and that worries me, because the inspectors are directly accountable to the Ministers; they are not independent of them. We have already heard enough of Ministers talking about the curriculum, and then finally getting down to the individual syllabus—to the detriment of that syllabus. Certainly, they do not help educationally in any way: I suspect that their knowledge of the workings of education could be contained in a thimble, and a small one at that. It seems that the sole contribution of the other Secretary of State was to deplore the fact that children watched "Neighbours". What a fine intellectual contribution that was.
This is a shoddy Bill. I shall vote against it, and I hope that Conservative Members will have the courage to do the same.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: In Tower Hamlets, we have 21 full-time local education authority inspectors, and one part-time inspector. They were drawn together carefully, and trained to inspect, advise and help school teachers.
What are those inspectors to do? They do not know what the future holds. If money is to be transferred to the schools, will money be available to keep them in place? Should they go into business and try to set themselves up as leaders of inspection teams? They would probably be deemed over-qualified; they would know too much about schools and education.
What training will those teams of inspectors receive? How long will the training last, and what will it cover? What will replace the irreplaceable—experience of teacher training, and experience in schools? As I said yesterday, I am very much afraid that people will set themselves up as inspectors in entirely new businesses, with no guidelines on how to price the job. They will not want to overprice it, so they will go for cheap staff—unqualified staff.
Every adult has some opinion, or prejudice, about education, based either on that person's past education or on what he or she wants for their own children. Those opinions and prejudices often do not stand up to what really happens in a classroom. There is nothing to replace teaching experience and teacher training when it comes to learning what is possible and what is not.
I have a dream. I would like to see the Secretary of State in front of one of the ever-larger classes of east London kids—bright, lively kids. I should like to see him trying to put some of his ideas into effect. He would soon learn a bit more about what is and what is not possible in education.
It is important for teachers to have respect for the inspectorate; otherwise the inspections will be of no value. I do not think that teachers will have respect for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker—people who are pig-ignorant about education, and who, after a short training course, will start telling teachers what to do. Often, what they tell teachers to do will be neither practical nor possible.
I am worried about the damage that will be done in schools by inexperienced people with little knowledge of education—especially to the most vulnerable teachers. Older teachers are already nervous because, under local management of schools, they are the most expensive. They feel that they are under threat. Younger teachers also feel

vulnerable, because they are inexperienced and have not yet built up their confidence. Allowing people with no real knowledge of education, apart from a short inspectors' training course, into schools to criticise teachers, advise them, tell them what to do and report on them will damage a great many of our precious teachers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): We began this debate some hours ago: indeed, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has had an extra 24 hours in which to improve on the speech that he began to make last night. In the end, he was reduced to repeating some of the stronger points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), which I shall deal with in a moment.
The only serious point that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central tried to make concerned his worries about who would guarantee standards, and who would manage the system. The answer to that is clear. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman, who did not serve on the Standing Committee, for not having read the Bill. In schedule 2, he will see that HMCI will be the guarantor of standards and will, in effect, be the ultimate manager of the system.
8 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who knows the education service, did not have those worries. His speech demonstrated great confidence in the system that we are proposing and an open-mindedness about the crucial inclusion of the lay element in inspection that I should have liked to have heard reflected a little more widely in the debate.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) implied that the HMCI for England and the HMCI for Wales would be creatures of Government. Whatever other accusations the hon. Gentleman levels against the Bill, I assure him that that will not be the case. They will be independent statutory office holders for the first time, with departments of their own.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) worried about the future of those who are inspecting in the present system, shortly to be the old system. The best guarantee of the future of any inspector, wherever he works, is the knowledge that the Bill will ensure that inspection becomes a growth business. We shall be increasing the number of inspections of our schools. Wherever they are, in whichever LEA, they will all be inspected every four years, to a nationally approved standard, rigorously upheld by HMCI. Any local inspector worth his or her salt should have no fear for his or her future.

Mr. Gordon: Business is the key word. Many of the inspectors do not want to go into business. They do not see themselves as business people, nor education as a business. The HMCI will have to operate, even if he is not a creature of the Government, within the parameters of this bizarre Bill.

Mr. Fallon: Yes, HMCI will operate within the parameters of the Bill, but not to the direct diktat of any Secretary of State, whether Labour or Conservative.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, South, who spoke to the new clause some hours ago, made a speech that was neatly summarised—I do not know why—by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. All the five points that he


raised relate to quality control. He will recall that we spent a great deal of time in Committee discussing the way in which quality control would be exercised over both registered inspectors and their teams. We explained then that the detailed arrangements for securing quality control of school inspection teams will be for HMCI to determine. The Bill supplies a basic framework by making the chief inspector responsible for the registration of inspection team leaders, for the training of them and of potential team members, and for the production of national guidance on the conduct of inspections within which teams will operate. We said quite clearly during the discussion in Committee that it will be for HMCI to decide the basis on which potential team members will be accepted for training, and deemed to have completed the course.
To suggest, as new clause 6 does, that HMCI should also maintain a list of those whom he considers to be "on probation", or in need of special supervision or induction training, and that he may attach conditions to their employment as inspection team members, although well meaning, is yet another attempt by Labour Members to place on the face of the Bill aspects of quality control that are properly for HMCI to determine.
It may well be, as I said in Committee, that HMCI will want to keep a particular eye on certain inspectors who have completed the training. How he does that will be up to him. In an extreme case—if a registered inspector seemed to wish to persist in using an inspector who was not in HMI's view competent—HMCI might impose a condition requiring him not to be employed. Whether he chooses to act in this way will, however, be up to HMCI; it is not for us to prescribe in statute.
The other important safeguard is that it is for the registered inspectors to be confident that those whom they employ are up to the job. The registered inspector knows that his livelihood depends on the quality of the team that he chooses to work with him. If he is successfully to tender for this business, he cannot afford to carry weak or unsuitable team members who will not inspire confidence or help him to win contracts. An incompetent team member might cause him to be struck off the register as no longer able to conduct effective inspections. The registered inspector is best placed to judge on the basis of experience over time, whether a person is able to make a satisfactory contribution to the work of a team.
HMCI will of course see the reports to which team members have contributed, and will join inspections during which they will see team members at work, but this is no substitute for the day-to-day contact which the registered inspector will have with his team or teams. The focus of HMCI's monitoring will of course be the registered inspector himself, as the person responsible for the quality of the inspections that he conducts.
It is also likely that HMCI will, from time to time, advise on the need for updating in particular areas, and will expect both registered inspectors and team members to take advantage of whatever training they recommend in that respect. Here again, the prime responsibility for ensuring that team members are fully competent and continue to up-date their skills and knowledge as necessary will rest with the registered inspector.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, South made the fair point that a registered inspector will always be working with exactly the same team, so I must say a word about that. The registered inspector will have to choose his team according to the inspection task in hand. There will be

those who are qualified to inspect in some subjects—I pick ancient Greek at random—who are likely to be working on a far more intermittent basis than those whose specialty is, for example, French.
That does not invalidate the argument that the registered inspector is best placed to judge the competence of a team member. If he finds someone's work unsatisfactory, even on the basis of one inspection, he is likely to be wary of using that person again. Furthermore, that inspector will not find it easy to gain further work if he has not obtained a suitable reference from his previous team leader.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: The Under-Secretary has slightly misunderstood me. I was talking not about the registered inspector who might have different members of different teams but about the team member who might work for different inspectors on different teams. I spoke about the problems of controlling the quality of the varying team member.

Mr. Fallon: I understand that. As I said, the primary control is with the registered inspector who is leading the team and who must at all times satisfy himself that the team member is competent and efficient. The ultimate control is with HMCI, on whom that crucial registration depends.

Mr. John McFall: Two points arise from that. First, if there is a personality clash and the registered inspector feels that a person is not competent, that member of the team could be disadvantaged because of the opinion of one person—the registered inspector. Secondly, if the registered inspector feels that someone is not appropriate to be on his or her team, what procedures are envisaged to inform other registered inspectors of the incompetence of that member of the team?

Mr. Fallon: I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I say that I find his first point somewhat schizophrenic. Most Labour Members have been worrying about whether the competence of the team member will be good enough. Again, it is for the registered inspector to satisfy himself that he is employing competent people.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I said that a team member would be unlikely to obtain further work if he was not able to furnish a reference from his previous team leader because that is the first thing for which the other registered inspector to which the hon. Gentleman referred is likely to ask.
I deal now with amendment No. 62. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is not here. I recognise that he has shifted the content of the amendment from that of a similar amendment that he moved in Committee, but this one suffers from the same disadvantage. If I understand the hon. Gentleman's purpose aright, it is to make it clear that the chief inspector can define the types of qualifications, experience and expertise that team members should have for particular inspection tasks—for example, for examining special units in main-stream schools or specific subject areas or age groups—and that the chief inspector should be able to enforce such guidance by making it part of the conditions under which an inspector is registered.
We made it clear in Committee that the way in which HMCI uses his discretion to set conditions and guidelines will be up to him. We should expect him to include—this


may assist the hon. Members for Truro and for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti), who is standing in for him—in the national guidelines for the conduct of inspections guidance on the nature of the team required to inspect different types of school and the competences to be expected of team members.
One condition expected to be attached to each inspector's registration is that he and his team should then follow the national guidelines in carrying out inspections. Of course, all will receive training which will be designed to give them a full working knowledge of the guidelines and their implications, and the inspector and his team will then be monitored by HMCI and by the school authorities which employ them to ensure that they observe the guidelines in practice and are competent to offer an accurate report on the school.
Therefore, it is for HMCI to set out the necessary competencies in his conditions and guidance. This is a matter which we are properly leaving up to him. I assure the House that he has all the discretion that he needs to set any of the conditions that he wants. The Bill does not fetter him in any way; so, although the amendment has been refined, it is not necessary.
Amendment No. 10, on the training of inspectors, falls into the same trap as new clause 6 in seeking to set out further rules and conditions within which HMCI must work.
I repeat that no one will be able to serve on an inspection team unless he has completed an approved course of training. It follows that HMCI will want to issue some form of written notification that training has been completed. The details of how that will be managed are for HMCI to determine. If HMCI believed that an applicant was not a fit and proper person to take part in school inspections, he would not allow that person to join a course of training.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is not it clear that these courses will be extremely rigorous, that they will deal with highly specialised areas and that what my hon. Friend says should be interpreted in that context?

Mr. Fallon: I am happy to confirm that, especially to those who have come only recently to the debate. Schedule 2(4) states that nobody will be involved in an inspection or be able to conduct an inspection of a school in England unless he has completed a course of training provided by the chief inspector or a course of training that complies with arrangements approved by him. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the assurance of rigour that he seeks.
HMCI can also be expected to ensure that obviously incompetent candidates who get through any initial sift do not complete the course of training. That is simple common sense, and I suggest that there is no need to provide for it in legislation. On that basis, I invite the Opposition to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Fatchett: The Under-Secretary accused me of having limited knowledge of the Bill because I have not served on the Committee. He offered that as an apology or an excuse for me. No similar excuse can be made for him. He is the Minister, he introduced the Bill and served on the Committee, but apparently he has very little knowledge of

the Bill. I presume that the Government put him on the Committee so that he could not do any further damage to the education system if allowed to run wild in other directions. Certainly it has not improved his knowledge of the Bill.
The Under-Secretary claims that the chief inspector is unfettered in his powers and activities. I remind him that clause 2(5) allows the Secretary of State to give powers of direction to the chief inspector and that he must follow those directions. That does not seem to be an unfettered relationship.

Mr. Fallon: We debated clause 2(5) at some length in Committee. Had the hon. Gentleman been a member of it or had he read the clause a little more closely, he would know that the chief inspector for England does not have to follow the Secretary of State's directions—he must only "have regard" to them. He does not have to comply with the directions issued by the Secretary of State. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now correct what he said.

Mr. Fatchett: I did not serve on the Committee, but I read the report of the debate, so I remember the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the Minister of State. Perhaps the Under-Secretary was not present at the time, but if he, understood anything about the legal interpretation of statutes, he would know that "have regard to" is virtually a mandatory obligation on the chief inspector. The chief inspector does not have unfettered powers. He is wholly fettered in that respect.
The Under-Secretary also said that the Bill contained a system of management. I suggest that he reads schedule 2(10) about action plans. He will find that there is no process of management whatsoever after an inspector's report is made on a particular school.
The best summary of the Bill was made not by the Under-Secretary but by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) last night: the Bill is potentially incestuous. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was desperately looking for reasons to support it. He asked for some assurance that in the majority of cases the inspectors would be up to the job. The Under-Secretary said, "Yes, in the vast majority of cases." That may be true, but we are concerned about all cases. We want every inspector to be up to the job. We are not satisfied with any other guarantee.
The Bill contains the incestuous ability to maintain low standards and to give people an interest in maintaining low standards. We shall now force a Division on new clause 6. The reason could not be summed up better than by the final comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South last night. He gave the example of the advertisement doing the rounds of the inspectors, which says:
V. cheapo licensed plumber and HMI schools inspector. All types of schools and drains inspected. Estimates free. Guaranteed customer satisfaction. Very keen prices."— [Official Report, 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1032.]
That is why we support new clause 6—we want standards and guarantees of standards.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 229.

Division No. 62]
[8.18 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Armstrong, Hilary


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy






Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Livsey, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Loyden, Eddie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCartney, Ian


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
McCrea, Rev William


Battle, John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Beckett, Margaret
McFall, John


Bell, Stuart
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bellotti, David
McLeish, Henry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McMaster, Gordon


Benton, Joseph
McNamara, Kevin


Bermingham, Gerald
Madden, Max


Bidwell, Sydney
Maginnis, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cartwright, John
Martlew, Eric


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Meacher, Michael


Cousins, Jim
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Michael, Alun


Crowther, Stan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cryer, Bob
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cummings, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Darling, Alistair
Morgan, Rhodri


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morley, Elliot


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eastham, Ken
Mullin, Chris


Enright, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Nellist, Dave


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fatchett, Derek
O'Brien, William


Flannery, Martin
O'Hara, Edward


Flynn, Paul
Paisley, Rev Ian


Foster, Derek
Parry, Robert


Foulkes, George
Pendry, Tom


Fraser, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Fyte, Maria
Quin, Ms Joyce


Galloway, George
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Robertson, George


George, Bruce
Robinson, Geoffrey


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooney, Terence


Gordon, Mildred
Ruddock, Joan


Graham, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Short, Clare


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hain, Peter
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hardy, Peter
Snape, Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Soley, Clive


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Steinberg, Gerry


Home Robertson. John
Straw, Jack


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hoyle, Doug
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Ingram, Adam
Vaz, Keith


Johnston, Sir Russell
Wareing, Robert N.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Kennedy, Charles
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Winnick, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kumar, Dr. Ashok



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Litherland, Robert



NOES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ashby, David


Amess, David
Aspinwall, Jack


Amos, Alan
Atkinson, David


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony





Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hawkins, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Hayes, Jerry


Bendall, Vivian
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Benyon, W.
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Body, Sir Richard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hind, Kenneth


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bottomley, Peter
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Brazier, Julian
Irvine, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jack, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Jackson, Robert


Browne, John (Winchester)
Janman, Tim


Buck, Sir Antony
Jessel, Toby


Budgen, Nicholas
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burns, Simon
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Burt, Alistair
Key, Robert


Butler, Chris
Kilfedder, James


Butterfill, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carrington, Matthew
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cash, William
Kirkhope, Timothy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knapman, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Chope, Christopher
Knox, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Latham, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lightbown, David


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Conway, Derek
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Couchman, James
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Devlin, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dicks, Terry
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Madel, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Malins, Humfrey


Dykes, Hugh
Mans, Keith


Eggar, Tim
Maples, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Marlow, Tony


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fallon, Michael
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Farr, Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Favell, Tony
Mates, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maude, Hon Francis


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mills, Iain


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Miscampbell, Norman


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David


French, Douglas
Moate, Roger


Fry, Peter
Monro, Sir Hector


Gale, Roger
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Norris, Steve


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Paice, James


Gregory, Conal
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Grist, Ian
Pawsey, James


Hague, William
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hanley, Jeremy
Price, Sir David


Hannam, Sir John
Raffan, Keith


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Redwood, John


Harris, David
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Haselhurst, Alan
Ridsdale, Sir Julian






Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rost, Peter
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (Tside North)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waller, Gary


Shelton, Sir William
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, Sir John


Squire, Robin
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Thorne, Neil
Mr. Irvine Patrick.


Thurnham, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 7

ADDITIONAL DUTIES WITH REGARD TO SCHOOL INSPECTIONS

'( ).—It shall be the duty of any registered inspector conducting an inspection under section 9, when requested to do so by the Chief Inspector, to report—

(a) as to whether proper practices have been observed in the compilation of information required to be provided under section 16 by the proprietor or governing body of the school; and
(b) on any other matter connected to such information required under section 16.'.—[Mr. Murphy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause refers to the additional duties of privatised or registered inspectors, especially in relation to the information required to be provided under clause 16 on the so-called league tables.
The new clause will ensure that schools are compared and proper practices adhered to, and it goes to the heart of the Bill. In the past two days, there has been much reference to the benefits and good aspects of the Bill. The new clause touches on the very essence of the competitiveness of the proposed system and the market forces that will govern education in England and Wales. It is a safeguard against the excesses of the folly of the Bill. The people of Wales involved in education, whether teachers, parents, inspectors or anyone else in the education world, are deeply opposed to the Bill and would be very much in favour of the mitigating effect of the new clause.
The Bill is opposed by the Welsh branch of the Association of County Councils, the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Welsh County Education Officers Society,

the Welsh National Union of Teachers, and the Welsh division of the National Association of Head Teachers. Indeed, all those who know anything about education in the Principality believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed and that the new clause will be a means of mitigating some of its worst effects.
The Government have, however, chosen to impose their dogma on Wales, when not a scrap of evidence suggests that we need either league tables to compare secondary or primary schools, or private companies of inspectors to do a job that has been done successfully by Her Majesty's inspectors of Welsh schools since 1907.
League tables and the proposed privatised inspectors are based on the marketplace rather than sound educational principles. The Government have sculptured the education service in the Principality into a monument to market forces. A school's viability will now depend not on its educational worth but on the number of pupils that it attracts, and open enrolment and local management of schools provide the preconditions. In turn, viability will depend on the school's so-called "success" based on the ludicrous and silly notion of league tables comparing schools. Pupils will be seen as a financial resource and teachers will "teach to the test". All 59 of our Welsh inspectors will be drawn into that ludicrous and daft jungle.
Schools will go for the cheapest and least stringent inspectors and the divide between our poorer and more wealthy areas will be widened even further. The relationship between pupil and teacher and between inspector and school will be reduced to the cash nexus.
Those market forces and a privatised inspectorate would not produce proper information for a useful comparison between schools. That is why if, by any chance the Bill becomes law, the registered inspectors would have to look at the nature of the information.
Today, the Secretary of State for Wales, in an answer to a written parliamentary question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), announced some details about how the inspectorate in Wales will be organised. What he said is inadequate and unsatisfactory. The creation of private companies of inspectors will fly in the face of more than 80 successful years in the history of Welsh education. The Welsh Office has ignored that, and we are deeply concerned that there is no commitment to a distinct Welsh inspectorate like the one that has existed for nearly 100 years. We compare that with the situation in Scotland, where the Government have already committed HMI Scotland to continuing. In Wales, the distinctive flavour of a Welsh inspectorate will be overturned because of a written parliamentary answer.
The Secretary of State has still given no date when the system will be introduced and the Welsh Office is deliberately suppressing the Valerie Adams internal review into the Welsh inspectorate. We have asked the Secretary of State many times to reveal what is in the report. The Minister of State, Welsh Office said only last week that he would not give the House or the people of Wales the results of that internal survey.
HMI in Wales, which is deeply threatened by the Bill, has been responsible for much that is good in Welsh education. Recently, when the House considered the GCSE and the national curriculum, the Welsh inspectorate gave our curriculum a distinctly Welsh flavour. For example, it initiated a GCSE in Welsh history in the English language, which is taught throughout Wales.


Welsh inspectors advise on research projects specific to Wales and successfully liaise with schools, colleges and universities.
There is a consensus on education in Wales. We have no teacher baiting, there are very few opted-out schools and there is little enthusiasm for the views of the Centre for Policy Studies. A dogmatic system of education has been foisted on us by the English Department of Education and Science and it is not wanted in Wales. From 1993, the Welsh Office will have responsibility for all Welsh education. With a curriculum council for Wales and a strong and vigorous HMI in Wales, much could be achieved. But much will be destroyed by the Bill.
If the Government insist on league tables, new clause 7 is vital. Otherwise, schools will go for the cheapest and less able inspectors. We must also take into account the present cost of inspections in the Principality. Given that it takes six months to plan, inspect and report on a school, and that some 15 to 20 inspectors may take part in the inspection of an average secondary school for about two weeks, we estimate that the inspection of an average secondary school in Wales costs about £80,000 and a primary school costs about £40,000. Where on earth will schools in Wales, which must suffer under the burden of local management, find that much money for proper inspections? It simply will not work.
The Welsh people deserve better. We do not want our schools to be inspected at the cheapest price, and we do not want to see an end to our Welsh inspectorate. We want an education standards commission to be set up in Wales, which will stand for independence, professionalism and the highest possible quality. The Welsh people will overwhelmingly reject the proposals at the forthcoming general election.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I did not have the opportunity of serving on the Committee on the Bill, and I want to intervene only briefly to comment on clause 7. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies, he will comment on whether this clause would allow the inspectors to act in something like an advisory role? I am very much in favour of all that the Government are doing in the Bill, and I am most disappointed to have heard the comments of the Opposition spokesman, who does not want to see examination league results.
It has been a great shock to the people of Bolton to find out that their primary schools came out so low in tests on seven-year-olds; we came out in the bottom third of the country, when we are used to coming out in the top third. Is it possible for inspectors who have a good deal of knowledge to give a little advice where such advice might be needed?
I have in mind one or two schools which could benefit from a bit of additional promotion. A very good primary school in my constituency is Egerton county primary school. The headmaster, Mr. Brian Hall, had an opportunity to meet my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have been asked by Mr. Hall to present to the Minister a memento of his visit to Bolton, which I have here. I should like to give this excellent promotional material for the school to my hon. Friend, who is now taking his seat on the Front Bench, at the end of this short debate.
Is it possible for a school such as Egerton county prrimary school to be given some advice on how it can promote itself? It is an excellent school but, although it has over 100 pupils and gives a good education, it is affected

by falling school rolls. Would it be possible for such a school to be advised by people such as inspectors on whether, for instance, the small school special allowance could be managed in a way more favourable to the school? Although it is in a metropolitan area, it might perhaps be more easily looked after as if it were a rural school because of its location on the northern edge of the borough where there is no high density population immediately adjacent to it. If the school suffers a severe reduction in numbers it can be seriously affected by the way in which the reforms work.
Will my hon. Friend comment, therefore, on whether inspectors could help fulfil, under the new clauses, any sort of advisory role or whether elsewhere in the Bill there is provision for inspectors to help schools in that way? We would welcome anything in this Bill which would help such schools to promote and improve themselves.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If I had known that the hon. Gentleman was going to bring in a tea towel and hold it in front of himself as if he had something to hide, I could have brought in a matching tea towel. They are obviously generally on sale. A company, I think in Birmingham, must have been distributing them round schools. I was given one by one of my godchildren for Christmas. So far it has hung on the kitchen door, but if we really have to go in for this, I suppose I too could bring one in and wave it around.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must discourage this sort of presentation in the Chamber.

Mr. Hughes: I was indicating that I had not thought of bringing in a tea towel, but obviously the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) thought it a good idea.
I want to speak in support of new clause 7. I support the specific wording of the new clause and am sympathetic to the points made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). He will know, I think, that I owe the majority of my school education to the Principality, in Glamorgan and in Breconshire. Educational standards, which in Wales are generally far higher than in England, together with the Welsh education tradition, must be retained at all costs. The Welsh inspectorate has certainly done a good job.
What I want specifically to do is push at a door which I believe is already partly open. I wonder whether I could have the Minister's attention to this specific point. New clause 7 seeks to add to clauses 9 and 16 the possibility of reporting on specific items in relation to schools. Clause 9 of the Bill as drafted makes it clear that the inspections cover city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts; that is clear from clause 9 of the Bill as drafted.
Clause 16 of the Bill as drafted says that the Secretary of State may exercise his power to make regulations under this section, and shall do so with a view to making available information which is likely to
assist parents in choosing schools for their children
and, in clause 16(3),
increase public awareness of the quality of education provided by the schools concerned and of the educational standards achieved in these schools.
The Minister may be aware that at present there is no requirement that city technology colleges should operate


an appeal system against refusal of admission. I raised this matter at Education Question Time the other day with the Secretary of State, and I had a helpful reply. He said,
I will certainly consider the…point, because it is our aim to put CTCs on a level with others in regard to funding and other aspects." [Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c.803]
The clear implication is that because they are publicly funded, at least in part, all the same criteria should apply to CTCs and their users as to other state-funded schools. I ask the Minister as a matter of urgency to consider this. I appreciate that it cannot exactly be done by means of the funding as set out in the new clause, but it comes within the sort of issue that is being probed by the new clause and by my question. Will the Minister consider amending the Bill before it finishes its passage through Parliament to require an appeals system against refusal of admission to city technology colleges?
It will be useful to know—it does not require publication of names—how the appeal system works and how many appeals succeed comparatively across the country. Such information may follow, but it is not clear that it will follow from the Bill as drafted. There is an appeal system in all other schools, and comparative data as to what percentage succeed and fail would be useful. It could not, however, be done in relation to city technology colleges because there is no requirement for such a procedure.
I have talked to the principal and staff at Bacon's college in Docklands, and I can tell the Minister that one of the complaints about the present legal structure, procedure and regulations is that there is no provision for any re-hearing of applications for admission which are turned down if, as happens, a city technology college is a popular school and is likely to have a full roll and full admissions. It is vital to have some clearly independent way of reviewing the decisions about selection made across the range.
We have had debates and differences about CTCs, and I do not tonight want to go into those issues again. I do not want now to argue again the merits of city technology colleges. I simply want to press the Minister tonight to say that he will be serious in joining his Secretary of State in seeing whether, before the Bill completes its passage, this omission in the original legislation can be corrected and pupils and their parents in this one category of school, looked after by inspectors and included in this legislation, can have the same rights as pupils and parents in other schools. I do not think that the principle is objected to, so I hope that we can agree on establishing a new practice. It must be done now if it is to be of any benefit to those who are currently applying with a view to admission from September 1992.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want briefly to mention some points that concern people in Wales who are not themselves education specialists like me but who have inspectors as constituents and who obviously have a large number of parents as constituents too.
I am particularly concerned by the slapdash nature of the statement produced by way of a substitute, namely, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) instead of being made in a proper statement to the House. It is not good that there is no Welsh Office

Minister here tonight, but possibly the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be able to answer my questions.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not offensive that what has been said about Wales was actually released in a written answer that, had the House proceeded as was intended in the original timetable, would not have been seen by Welsh Members until after the debate had ended? The Welsh Office is trying to stifle debate in the same way as it is trying to stifle publication of the report.

Mr. Morgan: My right hon. Friend rightly mentions the precedural inadequacies and the way that legislation has been slipped through as if Welsh education was some sort of afterthought by Tory Ministers. After the election, the Tories will be an afterthought for the people of Wales, which will perhaps be poetic justice.
The Valerie Adams report, prepared by a distinguished former Ministry of Defence civil servant for the Welsh Office, was heavily critical of the ideas for privatising HMI. Everybody in education knows that. We are not allowed to see that report because we are only MPs, whereas Welsh Office Ministers think that they are superior to everyone else and cannot allow those who represent the people of Wales to see that report. That is an appalling slight and puts paid to any idea of democratic debate. The Minister of State shakes his head. Perhaps he thinks that no reports should be published. What a wonderful advertisement for open government and the citizens charter.
The written reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) covers two full columns of Hansard, but is mostly long-winded educational gobbledygook. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, who represents Darlington, a well known area somewhere on the northern edge of north Wales, will be able to explain it. The only place where the answer attempts to tell the people of Wales how the new privatised or semi-privatised inspectorate of schools will work is where it says:
much will depend upon the rate at which local authority advisory and inspection services are able to adapt to the requirements of the new system, and upon the availability of independent registered inspectors able to work in Wales. I intend to keep the situation under review.
There is the smack of firm government. What is meant by
independent registered inspectors able to work in Wales."?
Obviously the Secretary of State for Wales has worked out that there is a difference between Wales and England because of Welsh language, history and culture. He mentions that in the first part of his written answer where he says that HMIs have to be different from those in England because of the
distinctive features of the education system in Wales, notably Welsh-medium education and the teaching of the Welsh language and Welsh history and culture."—[Official Report. 29 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 576–77.]
That is so obvious that even the Secretary of State can work it out, but he is ignorant of another major difference between HMI in England and that in Wales. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are a bit slow on the uptake and ask me to speak more slowly. However there is pressure of time.
The Secretary of State's reply does not mention that the inspectorate in Wales covers primary and secondary education while in England the inspectorate cover primary or secondary. There is no reference to that essential


difference, which has existed for 80 years, and it is because the Welsh inspectorate is much smaller and has to be more flexible. How will that be handled under the new system? The Secretary of State has not thought it necessary to refer to that other major difference.
Scotland is to be allowed to continue with its inspectorate which will not be messed about by the right-wing ideologues who advise the Conservative party in these matters, whereas it was thought that Wales was suitable for experiment. Most people in Wales believe that, as in Scotland, the education system is essential for a society which still lags 15 per cent. behind average incomes in the United Kingdom. It is an essential part of the way that families in Wales believe that they can produce a future for their children that is better than the future they had. The same belief exists in Scotland, and that belief has led Scottish Office Ministers to think that they must not tamper with the inspectorate in Scotland. Scotland has been totally left out of the legislation but Wales has been dragged in.
It could be said that Scotland's education system is even more different from the rest of the United Kingdom than that of Wales because it has a longer and more distinct history. However, by and large Scotland does not have a great linguistic difference between it and England. Therefore, there was every reason for totally exempting Wales from this ideological right-wing Tory nonsense.
I shall now deal with the nature of the inspections. The Secretary of State for Wales is not in the Chamber, although he is in the House. In his written reply he said that the working of the new system would depend upon the availability of independent registered inspectors who were able to work in Wales. I assume that he thinks it would be wrong to bring in people from Amersham, Birmingham, Cornwall or other places to inspect schools in Wales because, quite apart from not understanding the language, they would not understand the distinct aspects of education in Wales. If that is what he meant, he should have said so, and said that the inspection service in Wales will have to be Welsh-based. The Secretary of State is really saying, "Well, we do not know where we will get these inspectors in Wales, and I want to keep my options open."
If no new inspectors suitable for the privatised system emerge in Wales, what will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do? He says, with the smack of firm government, that he intends to keep the system under review. Is that the basis for legislating? This is the United Kingdom Parliament whose Members are expected to report to their constituents on the laws that they have passed even when they do not agree with them. In this case, we do not know what has been passed or how the new system will work in Wales, because the Secretary of State does not know. It all depends on how many new inspectors emerge.
If new league tables emerge in Wales, they will inevitably be used as they have been used in America, where they have become part of the marketing system for schools. Schools will set easy tests so that they can say that most of their kids have passed them, and the next generation of parents will want to send their children to those schools. That is what happens in America, particularly in the inner cities where there are too many schools because of the white flight to the suburbs. If league tables are used as part of marketing to get more kids on the

rolls and schools say that by hook or by crook kids will pass the exams, they will need sweetheart inspectors to approve of what they are doing.
We shall produce an education system with an inherent temptation to corruption and the propensity to conclude sweetheart deals with inspectors. That will be followed by the marketing of bent examination results, which already happens in the private education system, to make it attractive to parents who want to get their children through examinations by hook or by crook.

Mr. McFall: The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who came in with a tea towel for an apron, reminded me of a report that I had read. I want to refer to a couple of damning comments arising from a comparison with American education. In an article in The Independent, inspectors are reported as having said:
School principals said, on a number of occasions, that they would rather have good publicity than extra funding.
It is the marketing, the glitz, that matters. In this regard, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East showed us what he means. Education will take second place.

Mr. Thurnham: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to be left with the impression that the school to which I referred has anything but the very highest standards. My message was that that point had to be conveyed to the parents of pupils and potential pupils. The school has very high standards.

9 pm

Mr. McFall: I do not impugn the integrity of that school or the qualifications of its staff. What I am concerned about is the trend that the Bill will encourage. We do not want gimmicks such as are employed in America. The issue is one of statistics. The parents charter requires schools to publish statistics—for example, annual statistics on truancy—but statistics can be produced in an inaccurate and misleading way. That is why we are concerned. The provision that we are putting forward seeks to audit the accuracy of the schools' records and to permit comment, even when the records are accurate, on whether a school may be manipulating the figures. For instance, existing requirements to publish information are thought to be widely abused by means of practices such as the exclusion of pupils from examinations unless they are confidently expected to pass.
New clause 7 refers to proper practices. The term "proper practices" is borrowed from section 15 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, which prescribes the functions of the Audit Commission. It is standard wording, which applies to other areas of local government and to the duties of the Audit Commission. We ask the Government to take this point into consideration.
The Bill provides no mechanism for checking the accuracy of school-produced data. As has been said, schools can produce misleading data—data transmitted to the Department of Education and Science but, in the interim, corrected by local education officers. For the purpose of correcting such information, we submitted in Committee information in respect of which the Minister said that section 68 of the Education Act 1944 could he used to sort out errors. I suggest that that is plain silly. Section 68 provides the ultimate sanction—reference of governors to the Secretary of State. We are not looking for something like section 68 of the 1944 Act. In this case, that


Would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. All we want is accurately audited reports, just as one expects in respect of financial matters.
The point about specifically audited reports and information is very important. The Government intend that information published by each school should be straightforward, factual and easily obtainable. This is referred to as raw data. However, at no time in the current debate has "raw data" been defined. If the Secretary of State persists with this, it will end up as a raw deal for schools and pupils.
Having looked through the literature on education, I should like to quote from Education magazine of September 1991. In an article, Gerald Smith, who is head of St. Peter's independent school, Northampton, asks:
How, on a raw score league table, would you measure the achievement of one of the Chinese boys at our school, admitted from Hong Kong 18 months ago at the age of 14, unable to speak a word of English, who passed GCE art at grade A, mathematics and drama at grade C and who is now aiming, his confidence growing on success, to take five more next year?
Gerald Smith goes on:
On a league table this would appear as only three at grade C and above, yet this is as great an achievement as that of another boy who gained 10 GCSEs at grades A and B and four A-levels in chemistry, physics, biology and history, gaining him admittance to medical school. Both boys worked to their full capacity.
But the league tables do not show that both worked to their full capacity.
I have evidence from my region of Strathclyde, whose authority has undertaken a close examination of league tables. That authority says that the most potent factor affecting school performance is the intake of the school. This has been referred to by educationists as the "value added factor". It is very important that that factor be recognised.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) referred to Matthew Arnold. Perhaps we should reflect on what Matthew Arnold said. When he was inspecting schools, he would have concluded that one of the most harmful aspects of these proposals is that they could give rise to the emergence of a league table of schools based on assessment results, and that this could result in teachers developing a "teach the test" mentality. One American teacher I spoke to said that the test result followed the teacher like an albatross. More than 100 years ago Matthew Arnold, in his capacity as a schools inspector, described this phenomenon as
a game of contrivance in which it is found possible by ingenious preparation to get children through the examination in reading, writing and ciphering without their knowing how to read, write and cipher.
While not questioning the integrity of the teaching profession, I must say that pressure will undoubtedly be put on teachers to adopt a narrower focus. League tables may improve test results, but they will be a backward step as regards the education of children. That is why new clause 7 is so important.

Mr. Fallon: It is a truism to say that we have had a wide-ranging debate, but we have ranged through the Principality of Wales, the kingdom of Scotland, the republic of Bermondsey perhaps, and certainly the local authority of Bolton.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who concentrated on new clause 7, which provides yet more evidence of the Opposition's schizophrenia to which I referred. On the one hand, they urge that the chief inspector should be independent of the Secretary of State, as was urged in the former debate. On the other, in the new clause, they want to turn the chief inspector into an agent of the Department of Education and Science.
The regulations to be made under clause 16 will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and it will be for his Department to ensure that they are satisfactorily complied with, as it does now for similar regulations under the Education Act 1980 and the Education Reform Act 1988. The means whereby the information received and published is to be checked and monitored is primarily a matter for statisticians and administrators to consider. We have no intention of using Her Majesty's inspectorate or the school inspection teams as a statistical enforcement agency in that respect, and I am surprised that it should be suggested.
If hon. Members are concerned lest the monitoring will not be strict enough, I can reassure them that we are determined that it will be. We have already considerable experience is arranging for the collection and publication of examination results in a format best designed to ensure that those of all schools are presented in a fair and comparable way. We shall be similarly scrupulous in dealing with school leavers' destination figures, truancy rates and, in due course, national curriculum assessement results.
One of the main purposes of the consultation exercise, which we are currently conducting on the arrangements for 1992, is to establish the fairest way of presenting the information school by school. We shall be consulting again—taking account of the experience this year—before bringing in regulations under this legislation in 1993.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister realise how the publication of league tables will work practically? Let me give him an example. In my constituency, there is a school with a serious truancy problem. It has decided to produce attendance sheets for every period because that will enable it to prevent people from wandering about the school and out of school. The truancy rates will give the school a high truancy figure, because the records will show not just who is there at 9 o'clock in the morning and 1 o'clock in the afternoon, but at other times.
The hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues have complimented the school on its initiative, but in a league table sense it would be cooking its own goose and putting itself at the bottom of the league by detecting additional truancy not detected by other schools which did not bother to keep similar records. If everything is covered by league table, that will kill any incentive to get to grips with serious truancy problems.

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that finding other ways of identifying truancy makes it more difficult rather than less difficult to eradicate. I do not accept that. Of course there is a phenomenon known as post-registration truancy, whereby those registered at the start of the day may not be there at the end of the day. A school which adopts the policy described by the hon. Gentleman would be well placed to produce better figures.


The school's policy would show that it was tackling truancy seriously. I hope that pupils in that school would respond favourably.

Mr. McFall: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is trying to get a definition of truancy. What does truancy mean? Let us assume that, in a day with eight periods, a kid is absent for the middle of the day but was there in the morning and is back in the afternoon: is that truancy? It might be truancy in one school but not in another. The compilation of the figures will be important. If there is no definition of truancy and no standardisation, that will lead to inaccurate comparisons between schools. That is the important point. We want the Minister to turn his attention to standardisation.

Mr. Fallon: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I have indeed turned my attention to that. Just last year we reviewed the truancy regulations. They needed considerable updating. The main regulations dated from the 1950s. We have defined truancy much more strictly to show us who is absent on an unauthorised basis. To put it broadly, we have defined truancy as unauthorised absence. We have standardised the way in which unauthorised absence is to be recorded. If the hon. Gentleman has not seen the regulations or the guidance that went with them, I will be happy to send him a copy.
If Opposition Members wish to ensure that registered inspectors take full account of the performance information for each school which will be specified under clause 16, they need have no fears. HMI now has regard to such information in conducting school inspections, and I expect that HMCI's guidance will make reference to the need for inspection teams to do so.
It hardly needs to be said that if inspectors find evidence that a school is not meeting its statutory duty under clause 16, they can be expected to draw attention to that evidence in their report. HMCI will be able to notify the Secretary of State. But that will apply to all possible breaches of the law that might be uncovered, and I see no point in limiting such a duty to clause 16.
I now turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I begin by apologising to the House for the absence of my ministerial colleagues from the Welsh Office. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will recall, they were present yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, sat patiently here waiting for the scheduled debate. If it had not been for the disgraceful antics of the Opposition, which led to the postponement of that debate, my right hon. Friend would have been here to respond to the points that have been raised.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Torfaen raised the points that he did on new clause 7. He had some rapid footwork to do. First, he had the nerve to go on about our failure to recognise the distinctive features of the education system in Wales.

Mr. Straw: That is absolutely right.

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Member for Blackburn rather unwisely says that that is absolutely right. Perhaps I could refer him to his document "Raising the Standard". It did not include any reference to the proposal for an education standards commission in Wales which the Labour party

has now rushed out. Perhaps he could explain to the House how Wales was forgotten for a few months until these new clauses were drafted.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): The Opposition take Wales for granted.

Mr. Fallon: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Opposition take Wales for granted. The Government have recognised the distinctive features of the education system in Wales by creating a separate office of Her Majesty's chief inspector for Wales. Our announcement of the conclusion of our review of HMI yesterday again confirmed that the Conservative party has the true interests of Wales at heart.
As for the proposed educational standards commission, need not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said with regard to England about the imposition of an additional bureaucratic tier between HMI and the Secretary of State. HMI has enjoyed a great deal of independence, and we propose to give it more, not less, under the provisions of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Torfaen began by referring to criticism of the Government's proposals in Wales. I took a careful note of his words. He said that all those who knew anything about education in the Principality were opposed to the Government's proposals. He conveniently forgot the welcome given to the proposals by, among others, the Welsh Secondary Schools Association. I quote from the Western Mail for 8 January.
The shake-up of the school inspection system proposed by the Government was welcomed yesterday by the Welsh Secondary Schools Association.
The plans…could herald a new, more productive era in schools, the WSSA said.
The WSSA is quoted as saying.
Parents are not gullible people. They know the strengths and weaknesses of a school and the inspection reports could be used to give a school direction.
9.15 pm
The Opposition really insult the integrity of school governors and the intelligence of parents by their suggestion of soft options. Our proposals are clearly set out in the Bill, and they will increase the frequency of inspections and reports to give parents and governors the information they need. They will do that in Wales, just as they do it in England.
The hon. Member made a point about the numbers in the Welsh inspectorate. The number of HMIs has varied in the past, and I have no doubt that it will vary in the future. There are 58 in post at present. Hon. Members will know that the structure in Wales is different from and on a much smaller scale than that in England. That point was made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
It is important that HMCI for Wales should have the staff that he needs to fulfil the function and responsibilities given to him under the Bill. It would be quite wrong to restrain HMCI for Wales's flexibility in this respect by stipulating numbers in primary legislation, as Opposition Members attempt to do in amendment No. 58, which, if we are fortunate, we may reach a little later.
My right hon. Friend's announcement yesterday of the outcome of our review of HMI in Wales, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), said that, in due course, we expect to see an overall reduction in the numbers of HMI engaged


in work relating to schools. I do not intend to be drawn at this stage on precise numbers or on precise timing. I must emphasise that, even if any reduction in HMI numbers takes place, that should not be taken as any threat to HMCI's power or influence, which depends not on the number of people that he employs but rather on the new, independent framework that is being set up under the Bill.
I repeat that the independence of HMCI and his inspectorate has been strengthened under the Bill. The office of HMCI for Wales will be a new and separate Department of State, with clear statutory powers and duties. It is in our interest to ensure that HMIs are fully staffed to oversee the new system of regular inspections and to offer advice and assistance to my right hon. Friend. There is a new task for HMIs in the establishment and administration of the new scheme for registration and training of inspectors, whether from local authorities or from the private sector. The new inspectors will then undertake the regular inspection of schools proposed in the Bill.
Until such time as the new arrangements take effect, HMIs will continue their programme of inspection of schools. The registration and training of new inspectors will need to take account of aspects of the education scene in Wales which are different—notably, Welsh medium education and the teaching of the Welsh language, history and culture. We therefore need to give careful consideration to the question of numbers, and we intend to keep the situation under review in the light of these factors and the introduction of the new inspection arrangements. I am sure that HMCI will be as anxious as we are to ensure that HMIs in Wales will be sufficient in number to discharge their duties and responsibilities effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Morgan: Can the hon. Gentleman define for the benefit of the House and the people of Wales what the phrase
able to work in Wales
means with respect to the definition given in the parliamentary reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) yesterday? Does it mean that inspectors from outside Wales will not be regarded as qualified? They are not my words; they are the words of the Secretary of State for Wales. What meaning are we expected to draw from that phrase?

Mr. Fallon: It will be for HMCI for Wales to determine the arrangements for those whom he will be registering as inspectors for Wales. He must decide whether they are fit and proper persons, properly trained and therefore able to work in Wales. That is a matter for him to determine. I would not want to debar an inspector from England who chose to move to Wales to inspect Welsh schools, provided that he satisfies the criteria in the guidelines laid down by the separate HMCI for Wales—that is the important safeguard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) offered to present a tea towel to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who authorised me to thank him for that offer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East mentioned advice. From the sum of money spent on inspection and advice by local education authorities, we are taking only half—roughly that sum spent on inspection. We are leaving a large sum of money through which—should they choose to do so and should

their schools desire it—they may continue to offer the sort of advisory and support services that they have offered until now.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that he might like a tea towel too.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have one.

Mr. Fallon: He has one—I think that we can judge that by his shirt. He then suggested that we should study clause 16, to strengthen appeal arrangements for city technology colleges. It is a little rich of hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Bench—as they at first opposed the entire concept of CTCs—to come to the House now—

Mr. Hughes: No.

Mr. Fallon: Yes. If we look back at the proceedings on the Education Reform Act 1988—

Mr. Hughes: I oppposed it.

Mr. Fallon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he opposed the concept of CTCs. He now pops up as an advocate for the disappointed customers of CTCs and seeks to widen their access to them. I hope that that is a recognition—even if it is implicit— that CTCs have worked, have proved successful and are popular in his constituency. I do not think that he could have made that more explicit by the case that he is seeking to make.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fallon: I am answering the question.
The hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to consider changing the arrangements only last Tuesday. I hope that he will accept that it is perhaps not as easy for us to change our policies in 48 hours as it is for some other parties. On Tuesday, my right hon. and learned Friend undertook to consider that matter, and I am happy to consider it further.

Mr. Hughes: Without entering into the wider argument, may I say that I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Bill may be a means of achieving the end. If that end is to be achieved, it needs to be sooner rather than later because of the timetable of the academic year.

Mr. Fallon: Fair enough.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West who seems to have left us temporarily, raised a number of matters. First, he referred to the Adams report and asked why it was not being published. All those hon. Members who have asked for its publication have correctly described it as an internal review, and it will stay internal.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Cardif, West asked why the parliamentary question had been tabled relatively late in the life of the Bill. Proposals to introduce new inspection arrangements for schools were trailed in the citizens charter published last July, and in "Education: A Charter for Parents in Wales", published last September. Details of our proposals were set out in the Education (Schools) Bill, which was published on 7 November. I do not think that Opposition Members are seriously suggesting that they and the wider public in Wales have been unaware of the proposals, which have been extensively debated and publicised in the past few months.
Our proposals for new school inspection arrangements, the creation of the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector for Wales, and the role of HMI in those arrangements have been clear for a long time. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement was concerned as much with other aspects of the role and structure of HMI—for example, in respect of further education, initial teacher training, and advice and assistance to the Welsh Office education department.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked why we were not making similar changes to the inspectorate in Scotland. I have to inform him, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton could easily have done, that the parents charter for Scotland provides for a number of inspectorate changes in Scotland including the establishment of a audit unit. That is set out helpfully in the parents charter for Scotland document, which I shall ensure is distributed to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and other hon. Members representing Wales who have not seen it.
I hope that that covers the main points raised in the debate and that I have shown that the new clause is not necessary for the reasons that I have given. I have endeavoured to answer all the questions.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 9

FINANCIAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

`Sections 1 to 15 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has presented to Parliament a report giving details of the financial arrangements for the payment of registered inspectors and has given his certificate that he is satisfied that both the nature of those arrangements, and the adequacy of the funds available, is such as to ensure the efficient and proper conduct of inspections as provided for under section 9.'.—[Ms. Armstrong.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take new clause 16—Resources—
'. It shall be the general duty of the Chief Inspectors for England and Wales to identify the resource needs of the education system and advise their respective Secretaries of State accordingly and each Chief Inspector shall direct Her Majesty's Inspectors to ensure

(a) that inspection reports on individual schools contain information on the resources made available to each such school, and
(b) that such information is provided to parents under the terms of section 16 of this Act together with relevant information on the efficient management of financial resources by each such school.'.

No. 3, in clause 9, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
'(2A) The duty imposed by subsection (1) or (2) shall not apply unless the Chief Inspector states, in a report laid before Parliament, that he is satisfied that the number of inspectors registered under section 10(1), and the numbers of registered inspectors and members of inspection teams trained under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, are sufficient for the purpose of carrying out the number of inspections prescribed under subsections (1) and (2) of this section.'.
No. 21, in clause 17, page 11, line 42, after 'children;', insert—
'(aa) assist parents in assessing the adequacy of the funding provided to schools maintained by their local authorities;'.
No. 8, in schedule 1, page 16, line 43, at end insert—

'Estimate of expenses

(4A). The Chief Inspector shall, before the end of the month of December in each year, lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out his estimate of the expenses that will be required, and the numbers of staff, appointed under paragraph 1 above, required, adequately to fulfil his duties under this Act in the next following financial year.'.
No. 9, in page 17, line 41, at end add—

'Accounts

10. (1) It shall be the duty of the Chief Inspector—

(a) to keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts;
(b) to prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may direct with the approval of the Treasury; and
(c) to send copies of the statement to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the month of August next following the financial year to which the statement relates.

(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement received by him in pursuance of this paragraph and shall lay copies of each statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.'.

Ms. Armstrong: I fear that this will be the last main debate on the Bill, which shows the double standards with which we are dealing this evening. The Government told us that the Bill was being curtailed because of a filibuster, but we have been running to deal with the debate so far and we shall not be able to deal adequately with this discussion in the short time that is left before the guillotine falls.
New clause 9 deals with what has become known as the West Sussex question, part of which deals with the amount of money available to schools to ensure that they can carry out adequate inspections. Those people who are seeking to make this ludicrous Bill work are seriously worried about whether there will be sufficient finance to ensure even the four-yearly inspections, let alone dealing with the West Sussex question, the issue of more regular inspections or a school needing further inspections within that four-year period. [Interruption.] What will the public think of the behaviour of some Conservative Members when we are talking about the money that will be made available for a privatised inspection service? That money will not be sufficient to guarantee four-yearly inspections and certainly not sufficient to guarantee additional inspections should they be needed.
We have heard from the National Association of Head Teachers that it feels that it is vital that the proposals of funding for schools to pay for the obligations introduced in the Bill should be discussed at length by the House. The association will be interested to learn that the guillotine motion means that we have less than 35 minutes to debate the issue. The NAHT says that it wants a guarantee in the Bill that there will be funding for schools to enable them to pay both for inspections and for the follow-up processes prescribed by the Bill. The new clause would ensure that sufficient finance was available.
The Government have given us some idea of what they think the finances will be and of what they have made available for the Bill. They estimated that the cost would be £70 million a year. For schools inspected on a four-yearly cycle, the cost is estimated to be £6,000 for a primary school and £30,000 for a large secondary school.


About 5,000 primary schools and 1,000 secondary schools will be inspected each year if all the schools are inspected on a four-yearly cycle.
There was a leak in The Independent of the report undertaken by HMI on the review of the inspectorate. I regret that that report has not been published, and it is not adequate for the Government continually to say that it is an internal review. They have published no independent information in support of the Bill, although it is only by being provided with such information that we can have a clue about how the Government have arrived at the costings that I outlined.
9.30 pm
The leaked report in The Independent on 14 November estimated the cost at £75 million a year and said that it would take probably the equivalent of 30 full-time person days to inspect each primary school and 73½days to inspect each secondary school. It suggested that the going rate, as it were, would be about £250 a day. Some independent consultants who had seen themselves applying to set up teams of inspectors currently ask much more than £250 a day for their services, so many of them have been put off seeing privatised inspections as a new avenue of activity.
The cost of inspecting a primary school, based on those calculations, would be about £7,500 and not the £6,000 I estimated earlier. The estimated cost for a secondary school would be £18,000. That produces a total cost of £55.5 million for the annual inspection of schools, leaving a gap of £20 million. So we are left guessing to what the missing £20 million would be devoted.
A person who was thinking of setting up inspection teams wrote an amusing article in Education on 22 November last and went through what the costings would actually mean. He came to the conclusion that no inspection team would make a profit. We are talking of private companies which will have to pay for training and work over and above the work of inspection. The Minister said in Standing Committee that a team member could not expect to be on an inspection team all the time. Hence, the additional expenses for travel, office costs and so on will, I suggest, involve inspection teams in considerable overhead expenses.
We must remember that the cost of inspection will not comprise simply the cost of the team being in the school. To have a good inspection, time will have to be spent planning and the inspectors engaging in lengthy discussions about their collective experience in the school. Money will be spent on publishing the report and on marketing.
The firms in question will have to market their wares and publicise their areas of expertise and specialisms. As we know from the cost of Government spending in such areas, it is a rising and high cost. If it is expensive for the Government to advertise their wares, it will not be a cheap option for inspection teams to undertake a similar exercise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has pointed out, they will also be looking for a profit, for all sorts of other reasons.
The figures that we have been given simply do not add up. They do not suggest that schools will have enough money to carry out full inspections properly every four years. The Secretary of State says that the people of West

Sussex should not worry, because the four-yearly inspections will be much more thorough and detailed than the current annual inspections: we have heard a good deal about that today. But the inspections will not be so thorough unless the Secretary of State ensures that enough money is available to pay for them.
If the information that we have received so far about the costs allocated by the Government is correct, there can be no guarantee that even the four-yearly inspections will be carried out properly. Certainly there is no guarantee that each school will be able to afford the range of people that will need to cover the whole curriculum, especially in the small primary schools.
In Committee, we spoke of the need for, say, someone with a knowledge of special needs to be involved in every inspection. We were told that it would naturally be deemed important for the whole range of the curriculum to be covered by the inspection team. Yet many small primary schools will be able to afford only the equivalent of a two-member inspection team, which will have to include someone who knows nothing about the subject. How, in those circumstances, will that school be able to afford a proper inspection team? It would probably be able to afford it for no longer than half a day.
The whole thing is ridiculous. The new clause would enable Her Majesty's chief inspector to say that not enough money was available, and that a report must be brought to Parliament assuring us that it was available. Ultimately, as we debate this squalid Bill, we must try to ensure that there is enough money to secure the efficient and proper conduct of inspections. At present, it is all up to the Secretary of State.
I wanted to deal with many more points that were made in Committee, but I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak. Let me simply say that I hope that the Minister will be serious about ensuring that there are enough funds not only for the four-yearly inspections, but to allow schools to arrange proper inspections in the interim if problems arise. Anything less will inevitably mean a fall in standards; and, inevitably, it will mean that hon. Members cannot be assured that proper and efficient inspection of schools will take place.

Mr. Anthony coombs: The one thing on which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and most Conservative Members can agree is that we want the Bill to result in improved standards of inspection of our schools. The fact that the hon. Lady does not feel that the Bill will achieve that shows her complete lack of understanding of how it will work in practice. I can understand why she tabled the new clause, but the Bill defines statutorily, for the first time, the duties of the chief inspector. Clause 2(3)(c) says that his duties include:
keeping under review the system of inspecting schools under section 9…and, in particular, the standard of such inspections and of the reports made by registered inspectors".
Clause 4(a) also says that he has a duty to make an annual
report on that to the Secretary of State, who will lay it before Parliament.
The more important way in which the Bill will make inspections rigorous, to a high quality and to a standard that can be afforded by schools is through a concept that Labour Members do not appear to understand—the concept of competition. That is the essence of the Bill. Governors have a responsibility to their school. They are given a certain allocation of money. As chairman of the finance committee of a large secondary school in


Birmingham, I would make sure that the amount of money that I had to spend on inspections was adequate, and that will happen in schools everywhere. Governors will not be looking at the financial side; they will be making sure that every inspection is comprehensive and rigorous. That is a responsibility for which they will have to answer to the parents of the children in their schools.
If that were not the case, high-spending authorities would have both higher standards of education—there is no evidence to support that proposition—and the best levels of inspection. My experience of Birmingham, which is not one of the lower spenders, is that its inspection system was not thought to be of a sufficient standard when I was on the education committee eight years ago. The reason for that was not how much money was spent but how it was organised and directed and on what the vast majority of time was spent.
If inspectors have to spend their time dealing with genderism, multi-culturalism and anti-racism, the authority will not have a comprehensive system of inspection of schools. Such a system is not a properly organised one. On the other hand, my present authority—Hereford and Worcester—which is one of the lower spenders, has a good system which is organised properly.
The responsibility for inspections will be at school level, and on a competitive basis, the incentive for high standards of inspection at a reasonable cost, within the figures given by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, may well be possible and easily achieved under the Bill.

Mr. Enright: If those standards of inspection are so magnificent, why are the Government refusing to apply them to the private sector in which many people are being duped?

Mr. Coombs: The Bill deals with the public sector and the taxpayer's responsibility to the public, through the local education authority and governing bodies, to ensure high standards. Secondly, when someone sends his child to a private school, he makes a choice, exercised through his cash, or his own free will, and is entitled to take his child away if he feels that standards are not high enough. In the many cases where people do not have that choice, the Bill, which, for the first time, gives parents the information that they need to make choices, gives the Government the opportunity to ensure that schools are acting to an adequate standard.
If the Opposition understood the benefits of a competitive environment and the fact that local management of schools has already led to significantly increased resources for schools because local governing bodies know how to use them better than does a relatively remote local education authority, they would better understand the rationale behind the Bill and how it will provide better systems of education and inspection and, therefore, higher standards.

Mr. Flannery: It saddens me to hear that an honourable person such as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) believes in such nonsense—because that is what it is. It is unworkable.
I shall deal with the question of resources, which has hardly been mentioned. Clause 16 has the heading "Information about schools" and its title is "Power of

Secretary of State to require information". On the question of information about schools, the Secretary of State can ask for all kinds of things, many of them reasonable, but the resources that schools need to carry out the plans are not mentioned at all.
Although tiny, the Bill will be to education what the poll tax was to taxation. It could linger but—God forbid—not for as long. It is as unworkable as the poll tax. We all remember that the right hon. Lady who used to lead the Conservative party boasted that the poll tax was the flagship. That flagship sunk, but not without trace. It will continue for another year at further expense, and we wonder what will happen.
It is no wonder that the Government do not mention resources, because resources are being handed out at such a petty level that every aspect of our lives is in confusion. Chaos prevails everywhere. In the education service the morale of our teaching force is at its lowest ebb. Many of us who are familiar with it can see that clearly, and everyone accepts that something must be done.
When we saw all the amendments that had been tabled in Committee we knew in advance what would happen. There were literally hundreds of amendments and the study of them was in itself a life study. One always knows when the Government are in grave difficulties with their plans. First, they rush them through at a pace which is wholly unacceptable, even to them. Because they rush them through—as they did with the Education Reform Act 1988—they amend them to such an extent that Bills emerge at twice their original length. The Government are so uncertain about the Bill that they constantly tabled amendments. Even tonight, no fewer than 34 amendments have been tabled by Conservative Members, never mind our amendments. Only their amendments would have been accepted if they had been debated. None of our amendments have been accepted.
The Minister of State looks surprised. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would reach an agreement—we had to agree—saying, "If you leave this and don't vote on it, we shall attend to it on Report." Of course, we get nothing on Report, no matter what concessions we made. If the Minister does not agree, let him denounce what I have said and tell us how many amendments were accepted and how many he would have accepted tonight. In the meantime, resources, which are regularly overlooked, are not mentioned. At this stage, the debate on resources is one of the most important.
Schools are short of money now. They are low in morale, and short of books and equipment. Everywhere the fabric of the buildings is in a state which demands billions of pounds to put things right, yet we are enacting doctrinaire dogma, which says, "If it moves, privatise it; if it doesn't move, still privatise it. Privatise everything." The Government are caught up in their own dogma, so it was inevitable that the marketplace would prevail in education, and we would have all this unworkable nonsense.
In new clause 16, an important new clause which the Government will not accept, we try to put things right. It tries to remedy the deficiencies in the Bill concerning the money that schools urgently need for the inspections that are supposed to be carried out. Many of us hope that we shall never see those inspections, because the Opposition will become the Government, and we shall get rid of this nasty, squalid little Bill straight away.
New clause 16 says:


 . It shall be the general duty of the Chief Inspectors for England and Wales to identify the resource needs of the education system and advise their respective Secretaries of State accordingly and each Chief Inspector shall direct Her Majesty's Inspectors to ensure

(a) that inspection reports on individual schools contain information on the resources made available to each school, and
(b) that such information is provided to parents under the terms of section 16 of this Act together with relevant information on the efficient management of financial resources by each such school."

The Government will never accept the new clause, because the money they give schools is totally insufficient to run the schools as they are now. Schools are all short of money. Anybody who goes into schools sees that they need paint, equipment and everything else conducive to good education. Yet they cannot get that now. They have to beg for it and pray for it, and it is never forthcoming.
Yet at the same time, vast amounts of money are being given to the rich. The people in charge of the denationalised industries, such as British Telecom, are handing out hundreds of thousands of pounds to themselves, in the middle of a great recession, and there is no competition, although the Government talk about it. The situation is the same in the water industry, and now it will be the same in education. Money is to be made out of education.
In Committee the question whether inspection should include reference to the resourcing of education was left open. The Minister of State said:
We are talking about whether inspectors should be able to report on how resources affect the quality and standards of education"—
as though resources did not affect the quality and standard of education. In order to rebuff us and justify doing nothing about the issue, he continued:
the quality and standards of education that are delivered either nationally or in schools. We believe that there is nothing in the Bill's drafting to prevent them from doing that.
We replied, "All right then, put it in the Bill. Why can we not have it in the record that resources should play a role, that the inspectorate should tell the chief inspector nationally what money schools have available and, if they were to carry out inspections, how much more they would need?" We did not get that into the Bill. The Minister said that of course the Government would do that. Nonsense. Of course they will not.
The Minister continued:
Indeed, I shall go further and say that we would anticipate that both nationally and locally they would do that if they felt that it was a germane factor."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 3 December 1991; c. 122.]
He was wondering whether resources in schools and the need for money and equipment were a germane factor. Who does he think he is talking to? I cannot imagine a situation in which resourcing was not a germane factor. However, I can imagine what a vastly reduced HMI might do. The inspectorate will be reduced to a pitiful number, and the inspectors will not be independent. They will be tied to the Minister, and the Minister knows that.
I envisage the possibility that a vastly reduced HMI or new privatised inspection team will not always provide such information unless it is required of them. The chief inspectors should have particular regard to policies on resourcing and appraisal and should maintain the widely accepted need for the inspection service to retain the

integrity of independence. That deeply worries us, because all the signs are of a semi-dictatorial approach to the inspectorate, curbing the inspectors and bringing in people who are totally unqualified.
For instance, the Bill says that at least one member of a team should have no knowledge of education, in the sense of having had contact with it as a governor or in a similar role. There is no evidence to say that only one member of a team should have no educational knowledge, and the Bill gives the impression that there will be more than one such team member. Such a person could, for example, be a butcher. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) pointed out, in a jocular bit of repartee, that the schools will canvass the teams, and cheaper teams will be offered. Those teams will be compliant to the schools and will give a good report in order to get the job next time. The marketplace will then have entered the classroom. If that is the achievement in education that the Conservative party seeks, it is welcome to it.
The Bill is an attack on our schools, not on the schools to which Conservative Members' children go. Even the so-called great Education Reform Act 1988 applies not to their schools but only to ours. Neither does the national curriculum apply to their schools. We shall make the national curriculum apply to their schools and shall have their schools properly inspected by our inspectors.
The Government conceded to the inclusion in the publication of schools' information of a reference to managing finances efficiently. The Minister of State said in Committee:
There is a case for at least giving the Secretary of State the power to require schools to publish what I should call financial efficiency data at some stage in the future. We have no immediate plans to do so, but it makes eminent sense to have that power on the statute book."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 January 1992; c. 434.]
We have asked the Minister to put that in this squalid little Bill. But the Bill must go to the House of Lords, and I shall be staggered if it passes through there without much discussion. In Committee, the Minister of State said that he would "expect and want" inspectors to report on how the available resources affect both quality and standards in schools, locally and nationally. He added that Her Majesty's chief inspector's annual report already deals with resources. He argued against specific wording in the Bill, saying that many other issues to be considered by inspectors would have to be added to the Bill. There are 34 more in the Bill and the Minister says that the Government would have to add more.
The Government were in such a mess with the Education Reform Bill that it emerged approximately twice as big as it started, as a result of long amendments not from the Opposition but from the Government. They are in the same mess in this run-up to the general election which they are about to lose.
The new clause deals with the Minister's concerns by ensuring that the information is included in every inspection report. We want the resources—or lack of resources—to be shown in every report so that people and parents know how little money the Government are providing. They do not want that information in the Bill because they know that they are under-resourcing education. Under the Bill, they will continue to under-resource education, so they do not want to touch on the question of resources.
The new clause will ensure that the information is included, thereby providing a ready source of information for HMI to use, without having to investigate many issues at once. We have no faith in the belief that that inspectorate will be in a position to do a proper job. It is liable to be ill-qualified. It is liable to be, as state education is for our children, on the cheap all the time.
In conclusion, because it is nearly time for the guillotine to fall—although I am more than willing to keep going, as I have a lot to say yet—the new clause goes further in establishing the rights of parents to know the level of resourcing for each school. With their new-found desire to give parents full knowledge of everything, it should be perfectly obvious to the Tories that, if there is one thing above all that parents would like to know, it is whether their school is under-resourced. If their children's school is half falling down, for instance, the inspector will make it clear. An independent inspectorate will tell the truth, as it has done all these years.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 269.

Division No. 63]
[10 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Galloway, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
George, Bruce


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Golding, Mrs Llin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Graham, Thomas


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Battle, John
Grocott, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Hain, Peter


Bell, Stuart
Hardy, Peter


Bellotti, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Haynes, Frank


Benton, Joseph
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bermingham, Gerald
Hinchliffe, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Boateng, Paul
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Home Robertson, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ingram, Adam


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cox, Tom
Lamond, James


Crowther, Stan
Leighton, Ron


Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Cummings, John
Livsey, Richard


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Dr John
McCrea, Rev William


Darling, Alistair
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McFall, John


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McMaster, Gordon


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Maginnis, Ken


Enright, Derek
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Flannery, Martin
Meacher, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Foster, Derek
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fraser, John
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fyfe, Maria
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James





Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F bury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morley, Elliot
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Jack


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nellist, Dave
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


O'Hara, Edward
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N.


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robertson, George
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terence
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian



Short, Clare
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Allen McKay and


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Eric Illsley.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Couchman, James


Allason, Rupert
Cran, James


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Devlin, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, David
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Farr, Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Favell, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Benyon, W.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, John Dudley


Body, Sir Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
French, Douglas


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butterfill, John
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Ground, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, Sir John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Christopher






Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Pawsey, James


Hayward, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Price, Sir David


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rathbone, Tim


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irvine, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jackson, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Janman, Tim
Rost, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shelton, Sir William


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sims, Roger


Knox, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Latham, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Squire, Robin


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Lewis


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marlow, Tony
Thorne, Neil


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maude, Hon Francis
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tredinnick, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Miller, Sir Hal
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mitchell, Sir David
Walden, George


Moate, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Monro, Sir Hector
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walters, Sir Dennis


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Ward, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Moss, Malcolm
Watts, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wells, Bowen


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Wheeler, Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Wiggin, Jerry


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wilkinson, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilshire, David


Page, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Paice, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Patnick, Irvine
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wood, Timothy





Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. David Lightbown and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. SPEAKER then, pursuant to the Order, put the Question, That all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 134.

Division No. 64]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, Rupert
Eggar, Tim


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amos, Alan
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fry, Peter


Benyon, W.
Gale, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, Sir George


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Body, Sir Richard
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boswell, Tim
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ground, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hague, William


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chope, Christopher
Hayward, Robert


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert






Janman, Tim
Riddick, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shelton, Sir William


Latham, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Speller, Tony


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Squire, Robin


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Malins, Humfrey
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thorne, Neil


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thurnham, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miller, Sir Hal
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Morrison, Sir Charles
Walden, George


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Moss, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Walters, Sir Dennis


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Ward, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Warren, Kenneth


Norris, Steve
Wells, Bowen


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wheeler, Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitney, Ray


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wilshire, David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wood, Timothy


Portillo, Michael
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Powell, William (Corby)
Yeo, Tim


Price, Sir David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Raffan, Keith



Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. David Lightbown and


Redwood, John
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Rhodes James, Sir Robert





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Battle, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beckett, Margaret


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bellotti, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Benton, Joseph



Bermingham, Gerald
Livsey, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Boateng, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
McCrea, Rev William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Macdonald, Calum A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McFall, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McLeish, Henry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McMaster, Gordon


Cartwright, John
McNamara, Kevin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Maginnis, Ken


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cousins, Jim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cox, Tom
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Crowther, Stan
Martlew, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Meacher, Michael


Cummings, John
Meale, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michael, Alun


Cunningham, Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Darling, Alistair
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dewar, Donald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dixon, Don
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Enright, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Murphy, Paul


Fatchett, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Flannery, Martin
O'Brien, William


Flynn, Paul
O'Hara, Edward


Foster, Derek
Paisley, Rev Ian


Foulkes, George
Primarolo, Dawn


Fraser, John
Redmond, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Robertson, George


Galloway, George
Robinson, Geoffrey


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Rooney, Terence


George, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Short, Clare


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hain, Peter
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hardy, Peter
Snape, Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Soley, Clive


Haynes, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Steinberg, Gerry


Hinchliffe, David
Straw, Jack


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Home Robertson, John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hoyle, Doug
Vaz, Keith


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wareing, Robert N.


Ingram, Adam
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kirkwood, Archy



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Allen McKay and


Litherland, Robert
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9

INSPECTION OF CERTAIN SCHOOLS

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 5, line 31, at end insert—

'( ) maintained nursery schools.'.

No. 23, in page 5, leave out line 32.

No. 24, in page 5, line 45, at end insert—

'( ) Regulations under this section may, in particular—

(a) make provision as to the period within which the first inspection of a school under this section is to begin;


(b) make any such provision by reference to the time when funds for the first inspection are made available to the school; and
(c) provide for intervals to be prescribed by reference to times when funds for inspections under this section are made available to schools.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 16

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO REQUIRE INFORMATION

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 10, line 6, leave out second 'of.

No. 26, in page 10, line 12, leave out 'and'.

No. 27, in page 10, line 15, at end insert; or
(c) assist in assessing the degree of efficiency with which the financial resources of those schools are managed.'.

No. 28, in page 11, line 15, at end add—
'( ) This section does not apply to nursery schools.'.— [Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 17

INFORMATION AS TO SCHOOLS AND PUPILS: SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 11, line 35, leave out second 'of.

No. 48, in page 11, line 42, leave out 'and'.

No. 49, in page 11, line 46, at end insert; or
(c) assist in assessing the degree of efficiency with which the financial resources of those schools are managed.'.

No. 50, in page 12, line 31, at end insert—
( ) This section does not apply to nursery schools.'.

No. 51, in page 13, line 6, leave out 'or' and insert
'school, an'.

No. 52, in page 13, line 6, at end insert 'or a nursery school.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 18

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 13, line 30, leave out from 'arts"' to 'section' and insert
'have the meanings given in'.

No. 31, in page 13, line 38, after first 'school'.

No. 32, in page 13, line 38, at end insert—
'"nursery school" has the meaning given in section 9(4) of the Education Act 1944;'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clauses 20

EXPENSE

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 14, line 30, at end insert—
'( ) There shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund any sums received by the Chief Inspector under section 10(4)(b) or paragraph 4(3), 5(3) or 12(4) of Schedule 2."—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 21

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT ETC

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 14, line 32, leave out from 'Act' to 'as' in line 33 and insert 'shall be included among the Acts which may be cited'.

No. 35, in page 15, line I, leave out from '(6)' to 'also' in line 3 and insert

'Paragraphs 7 to 9 of Schedule 1 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 4'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Second Schedule—

SCHOOL INSPECTIONS

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 18, line 33, at end insert any connection er—'.

No. 37, in page 18, leave out line 34 and insert—
'(a) the school in question,'.

No. 38, in page 18, line 35, leave out 'any connection with'.

No. 39, in page 18, line 35, after 'person', insert 'who is'.

No. 40, in page 18, line 35, at end insert—
'( ) any person who is a member of the school's governing body, or

( ) the proprietor of the school,'.

No. 41, in page 20, line 10, after 'body', insert '(if any)'.

No. 42, in page 20, line 12, at end insert—
'( ) In the case of—

(a) a voluntary school, or
(b) a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school immediately before it became a grant-maintained school,

the registered inspector shall also send a copy of the report and summary to the person who appoints the school's foundation governors.'.

No. 43, in page 20, line 36, after 'this' insert 'Part of this'.

No. 44, in page 20, line 46, after 'body', insert '(if any)'.

No. 45, in page 20, line 48, at end insert—
'( ) In the case of—

(a) a voluntary school, or
(b) a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school immediately before it became a grant-maintained school,

the appropriate authority shall also send a copy of the action plan to the person who appoints the school's foundation governors.'.

No. 46, in page 21, line 17, leave out 'school' and insert
'maintained school which is not a nursery school'.

No. 47, in page 22, line 38, at end insert—

'Additional action plans

.—(1) The governing body to whom an inspector has reported under this Part of this Schedule shall, before the end of the prescribed period, prepare a written statement ("the additional action plan") of the action which they propose to take in the light of his report and the period within which they propose to take it.

(2) Where an additional action plan has been prepared by a governing body, they shall, before the end of the prescribed period, send copies of it to the person who appoints the school's foundation governors and—

(a) in the case of a voluntary school, to the local education authority, or
(b) in the case of a grant-maintained school, to the Secretary of State,

and to such other persons (if any), in such circumstances, as may be prescribed.

(3) The governing body shall—

(a) make any additional action plan prepared by them available for inspection by members of the public, at such times and at such a place as may be reasonable;
(b)provide a copy of the plan, free of charge or in prescribed cases on payment of the prescribed fee, to any person who asks for one; and
(c) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every parent of a registered pupil at the


school for whom the school provides denominational education receives a copy of the plan as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(4) Where the governing body of a school have prepared an additional action plan, they shall include in their governors' report a statement of the extent to which the proposals set out in the plan have been carried into effect.

(5) In sub-paragraph (4) "the governors' report" means—

(a) in the case of a voluntary school, the report referred to in section 30 of the Education (No.2) Act 1986; and
(b) in the case of a grant-maintained school, the report referred to in section 58(5)(j) of the Education Reform Act 1988.

(6) Sub-paragraph (4) applies only in relation to the most recent additional action plan for the school in question.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

MR. SPEAKER then, pursuant to the Order, put the remaining Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 132.

Division No. 65]
[10.22 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Conway, Derek


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amos, Alan
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ash by, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, David
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Eggar, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Sir Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Benyon, W.
Fallon, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Farr, Sir John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Favell, Tony


Body, Sir Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bottomley, Peter
Forth, Eric


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Bowis, John
French, Douglas


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fry, Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gorst, John


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butler, Chris
Green way, Harry (Eating N)


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carrington, Matthew
Grist, Ian


Cash, William
Ground, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Churchill, Mr
Hampson, Dr Keith





Hanley, Jeremy
Page, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Paice, James


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Harris, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Pawsey, James


Hawkins, Christopher
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayes, Jerry
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Portillo, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Price, Sir David


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raffan, Keith


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Rathbone, Tim


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Redwood, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Riddick, Graham


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunter, Andrew
Rost, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jackson, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Janman, Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shelton, Sir William


Key, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kilfedder, James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sims, Roger


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knapman, Roger
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Speller, Tony


Knox, David
Squire, Robin


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Steen, Anthony


Latham, Michael
Stern, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Lewis


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sumberg, David


Lord, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Temple-Morris, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Madel, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Malins, Humfrey
Thorne, Neil


Mans, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Maples, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marlow, Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maude, Hon Francis
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walden, George


Miller, Sir Hal
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mills, Iain
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ward, John


Mitchell, Sir David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Monro, Sir Hector
Watts, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wells, Bowen


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wheeler, Sir John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Whitney, Ray


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wilkinson, John


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Wilshire, David


Nelson, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Winterton, Nicholas


Norris, Steve
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Woodcock, Dr. Mike






Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. David Lightbown and



Mr. John M. Taylor.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lamond, James


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Leighton, Ron


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Litherland, Robert


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Livsey, Richard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Battle, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Beckett, Margaret
McCrea, Rev William


Bellotti, David
Macdonald, Calum A.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McFall, John


Benton, Joseph
McLeish, Henry


Bermingham, Gerald
McMaster, Gordon


Bidwell, Sydney
McNamara, Kevin


Boateng, Paul
Madden, Max


Boyes, Roland
Maginnis, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Martlew, Eric


Cartwright, John
Meacher, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Meale, Alan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Michael, Alun


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cousins, Jim
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cox, Tom
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Crowther, Stan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Cummings, John
Morley, Elliot


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunningham, Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Darling, Alistair
Mowlam, Marjorie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mullin, Chris


Dewar, Donald
Murphy, Paul


Dixon, Don
Nellist, Dave


Dunnachie, Jimmy
O'Brien, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
O'Hara, Edward


Eastham, Ken
Paisley, Rev Ian


Enright, Derek
Primarolo, Dawn


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Redmond, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Robertson, George


Flannery, Martin
Robinson, Geoffrey


Flynn, Paul
Rooney, Terence


Foster, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Foulkes, George
Short, Clare


Fraser, John
Skinner, Dennis


Fyfe, Maria
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Galloway, George
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


George, Bruce
Snape, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Soley, Clive


Gordon, Mildred
Spearing, Nigel


Graham, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


Grocott, Bruce
Straw, Jack


Hain, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hardy, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Haynes, Frank
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Vaz, Keith


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Home Robertson, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hoyle, Doug
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Ingram, Adam
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Standing Charges

Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to ask leave to present a petition containing 10,000 names of my constituents. The subject matter of the petition is standing charges, which the pensioners of my area say are a great burden on them. Many of them, especially during the winter period, are terrified of the cost that those charges impose on them. In addition, they find it difficult to accept the need for standing charges when massive increases have been imposed by services such as gas, water and electricity and when, at the same time, huge salary increases have been given to the directors of the companies that provide those services.
The petition also refers to the issue of free TV licences, of which I am a fervent supporter. Indeed, I find it incredible that at this time, as we head towards a general election, Conservative Members should be calling for a cut of 1p in the pound—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not indulge in that type of party political onslaught when presenting a petition.

Mr. Meale: I understand, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps I might comment that it would cost only 0.3p for every disabled person and pensioner in Britain to be given a free TV licence. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of residents of Mansfield showeth that standing charges for water, gas, electricity and telephones are a great burden on pensioners at a time when the profits of the utility companies are high and the salaries of the top executives have been vastly increased.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will introduce legislation to abolish standing charges for these utilities for all pensioners, and also to introduce free television licences for pensioner households.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Black Country Spine Road

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Mr. Peter Snape: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the problems that the proposed black country spine road will cause my constituency of West Bromwich, East and the constituency which is represented with such distinction by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), who regrettably, for understandable reasons, cannot be here tonight.
The original black country spine road proposals were to link junction 1 on the M5 at West Bromwich to junction 10 on the M6 near Wolverhampton and to open up considerable areas of the black country for regeneration. The road, which was to be dual carriageway, with grade-separation at all junctions, passed through the boroughs of Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton. Those authorities have, since 1988, been working with the Department of Transport and the Black Country development corporation to design and construct the road.
The speed with which the design of the scheme progressed to the compulsory purchase order stage was unprecedented and a public inquiry was held in September 1989. Indeed, since then, a dozen or so houses on Billhay street in West Bromwich have already been acquired and stand derelict, although I understand that they will not now be required, given the truncated version of the scheme.
In May 1990, the Department of Transport embarked on a review of the black country spine road following an escalation of the estimated costs of the original scheme. On 18 July 1991, in a written reply, somewhat surprisingly to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), the Government announced that they could not support the full scheme as proposed. They were willing, they said, to support an at-grade dual carriageway running from Carters green, West Bromwich, to Leabrook road, Wednesbury, at an estimated cost of £93 million. The northern section of the scheme would not be supported.
I said that I was surprised that the decision has been announced in the form of a written reply to the hon. Member for Yardley. That reply came within a few clays of a letter that I had written to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, asking what progress was being made on the scheme. It is rather sad that the present Government are so partisan that even a road scheme in my constituency, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West can be announced only through the medium of what I regard as a planted question from a Conservative Member. I do not really see the point of subterfuge.
The current proposals are as follows. The road is now to be built from Carters green, in the West Bromwich, East constituency, to Leabrook road, Wednesbury, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West. As I have said, there are now no proposals to build the northern section through Walsall and Wolverhampton. The road will be built as a dual carriageway with at-grade junctions, at an estimated cost of £93 million. It will not be
trunked on completion. As far

as we know, the project will be managed by the Black Country development corporation, with Sandwell metropolitan borough council as the agent.
The objectives of the original proposals have not altered from its inception, and were comprehensively addressed in the evidence given to the public inquiry. The present proposals fall far short of the objectives, as I shall attempt to show. The objectives of the original scheme were set out by the Black Country development corporation in 1988, as follows:
To promote a high quality dual carriageway through the Black Country as an extension to the national and regional network…To provide access to land for regeneration purposes…To provide overall relief to existing routes and accident blackspots…To create jobs, both directly and indirectly…To reclaim land, both directly and indirectly.
I have mentioned some of the shortcomings of the current proposals. The strategic nature of the road link, as forming part of the national and regional highway network, will be seriously affected. Traffic relief to existing routes, as originally envisaged, will be considerably diminished. The regeneration role of the new road will not be fully met, because of the more limited junction capacity and the exclusion of the northern half of the scheme.
The reduced scheme will mean that some of the existing highway network will be used for quicker alternative routes. Particular traffic problems will occur at the A41/A46 junction between Holyhead road and High Bullen, Wednesbury, and the A461 Wood Green road to junction 9 of the M6. Deletion of grade separation at All Saints junction means that that point will be overloaded immediately after the spine road is opened. In a moment, I shall try to show just how overloaded the road is at that point now.
The development of the Patent Shaft site in Wednesbury, and the reclamation and development of other sites along the route, will be hampered by the reduced scheme, which will obviously be much less attractive to developers. The exclusion of the route to the north will have a similar damaging impact on job creation.
The Government continually lecture us about the need to save money. Any proposals from the Opposition are greeted with the parrot cry, "Where will the money come from?" It is interesting to note that this aborted scheme has already cost about £15 million—according to the local authority estimates—and there are further costs of house acquisition and so forth still to be calculated.
When the original proposals were first published, I campaigned on behalf of my constituents for proper grade separation at the two junctions in my constituency—one at the expressway with All Saints way, and also at the end of the expressway at Carters green in the centre of West Bromwich. As for the first junction, there is already a considerable problem with traffic tailback at the expressway, particularly in the evening rush hour. The extra traffic that will be generated by the new road proposals will not only cause chaos at this point; it will mean considerable environmental damage and pollution for the residents of All Saints way, Grafton Street and surrounding areas. The additional traffic will also have an environmental and health impact on the children and staff at Cronehills school, which is adjacent to the junction X.
I should not have to remind the Minister, but I do, of the already high levels of pollution caused by motor vehicle exhausts in Birmingham and the black country generally. I also remind him that one regularly reads of people committing suicide by inhaling car fumes, and this


scheme will result in thousands of extra vehicles standing in traffic jams and polluting the atmosphere next to a major primary school in my constituency, and a school in the constituency of my hon. Friend.
The proposals at the next junction along are just as damaging, if that is possible. Instead of the two existing roundabouts in the Carters green area of West Bromwich, there will be one massive roundabout, with a cris-cross system of subways through which local residents from Old Meetings street, Garratt street and the Tantany area of West Bromwich will have to scurry to get to and from the town centre. I can describe these proposals only as a mugger's paradise. I ask the Minister to remember what it was like to use subways in the days before he acquired his ministerial limousine. Does he seriously think that the people of West Bromwich, particularly women and school children, and especially at night, will be happy to be treated like moles while motor vehicles remain on the surface, just so that a few pounds can be saved?
My opposition to the scheme is based on the fact that, once again, a great deal of money, around £93 million, is being spent on what I and my hon. Friend can describe only as a road to nowhere, to which must be added the minimum of £15 million for house purchase and other acquisitions.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: No, I will not. The hon. Lady knows the tradition with Adjournment debates. Had she told me that she wished to participate, I would have made allowances for that. Furthermore, the scheme does not affect her constituency.
This scheme has come from a Department that has so far refused to give the go-ahead for worthwhile public transport schemes, such as the Midland metro. Virtually all of line 1 of the metro could be built for the same cost as these disastrous proposals, and if the Minister is really anxious to relieve congestion in West Bromwich and the surrounding areas, his Department can give the go-ahead for loan sanction for the Snowhill-West Bromwich-Smethwick rail line opening. Those two projects are environmentally acceptable, and will be much better value for money than this scheme.
I have mentioned the impact of this scheme on the environment. Does the Minister intend to see that an environmental impact assessment is carried out before work starts? I remind him that the United Kingdom is a signatory to EC directive 85/337 of 28 June 1985, and annex 1 of that directive says that all motorway and dual carriageways must be subjected to an environmental impact assessment. I have today written to Commissioner Ripa de Meana to ask whether he has been notified as to whether such an assessment has been, or is being, carried out by the Government and, if not, whether he will ensure that this environmentally disastrous project is properly evaluated before the go-ahead is given.
The original spine road was worth doing only in its entirety, with underpasses at the two junctions that I have mentioned, terminating at the junction with the proposed black country route, connecting with the M6 at junction 10. This half-baked and disastrous alternative is not worth doing, and the Government should put up the money for

the original scheme or divert scarce resources to the other economical and environmentally acceptable alternatives that I have outlined.
I ask the Minister to look again at this scheme. There has been considerable local opposition to these proposals in both the West Bromwich constituencies. Terminating the route at the Patent Shaft site will divert thousands of extra vehicles along Wood Green road in Wednesbury, in my hon. Friend's constituency. Already, a new entrance and exit, to the new Ikea furniture showroom next to the motorway, has been opened in that road, and if the steel terminals in the west midlands are combined in Bescot sidings, it is intended to build another carriageway into Bescot sidings.
Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend has asked me to point out that the residents of Wood Green road feel that what was a comparatively tranquil town road is being turned into a major highway against their wishes and, indeed, without their views being heard.
If the Minister is serious about alleviating congestion and about regenerating the black country, he will carry out the scheme properly. I appeal to him even at this late stage to think again, because what he proposes is not merely expensive but environmentally disastrous.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), having read some of the advance local press comments which anticipated the debate. Those comments highlighted the fact that he was going to say that the spine road—the £93 million scheme—should be abandoned and that the money should be spent on other transport infrastructure projects.
Apparently, the hon. Gentleman did not mention to the press the fact that he wanted to spend not £93 6million but more than £250 million on the road. He also emphasised to the press the fact that he thought that the Black Country development corporation, which has done so much to revive spirits in the black country, should be closed as soon as there was a Labour Government. Of course, that means that it will never be closed, but it was an amazing example of the hon. Gentleman making Opposition policy on the hoof. If there was to be a policy to close any development corporation, one would have expected it to be announced by an environment spokesman rather than by a Front-Bench transport spokesman.
It appears that the hon. Gentleman's position on this project has much to do with his embarrassment about the fact that, as a transport spokesman of a party committed to reducing investment in roads, he should be arguing the logic of attaching to the road a cost of more than £250 million rather than £93 million. As a result of the logic of his party's position, he is forced to say that it would be better to abandon the scheme altogether rather than to proceed with the two and half miles of road which has the support of industrialists, the chambers of commerce and many people in the black country. His comments in recent weeks were designed—at least, this was their effect—to undermine confidence in the project, although, now that it has become clear that the Government will be re-elected, that confidence will return.

Mrs. Hicks: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has been so perceptive. That will be welcomed by the majority of business men in the west midlands and by


the majority of the colleagues of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). There seems to be tremendous confusion and conflict which my hon. Friend has picked up. I draw his attention to the fact that some Labour Members of Parliament and Labour councillors have supported the road—we have seen headlines such as
Labour in protest at spine road cutback
and
New bid to save Spine Road".
Those Labour Members and councillors share my bitter disappointment that the Government could not allocate the funds for the complete road.
Having expressed my disappointment to my hon. Friend so clearly on many occasions, I invite the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East—if he is as united with his colleagues as he appears to believe—to join me in pressing the Government to say that, as soon as finance can be made available, we shall continue the regeneration of the black country and complete the road. He appears to be taking a mealy-mouthed attitude and saying, "Let's back down."

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she should direct her remarks to the Minister.

Mr. Chope: I accept that my hon. Friend has been commendably consistent in her support for the black country spine road. She is right to draw the House's attention to the inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's attitude. If he wants a longer and more expensive road, he should have the courage of his convictions and should argue for it openly, saying that it would be his party's policy to spend more than £250 million on it. Instead, he is saying that that would not be his party's policy—his party's policy would be to abandon the scheme. That displays a rather bizarre sense of reasoning, and I am sure that the people who depend upon the benefits brought by the revival of the black country for their future employment will find it bizarre, too.
The black country was intensively developed by extractive and manufacturing industries for more than a century. Over the past 20 years, it has suffered from the decline of its traditional engineering trades, but the resilience of the area and its people has seen its fortunes gradually improve through the 1980s. In order to give the core of the area a major boost on the path back to prosperity, the Government set up the Black Country development corporation in 1987. The corporation's principal aims are to encourage new economic initiatives, to foster innovation and to facilitate regeneration.
Right from the start, the development corporation recognised that the building of a new spine road through the area was crucial to the success of its strategy for regeneration as a means of opening up the area and securing better access to the national road network. Consultants looked at various options and identified a feasible route. That would be a 4.5 mile long dual carriageway road linking the black country route—and thence junction 10 of the M6—with junction 1 of the M5. At that stage, the estimated cost was £50 million. On that basis, in early 1988 the Government agreed to provide 100 per cent. funding. The scheme was to be promoted jointly by Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton metropolitan borough councils.
The three local authorities, working together with the Department and the development corporation, made quick progress. Within 18 months, planning permission

had been obtained and highways orders made in time for a public inquiry to be set up in September 1989. By that time, however, it was already apparent that the costs of the scheme were escalating alarmingly, and the review of the project was carried out.
As a result of the review it became clear that the scheme in its original form, far from costing £50 million, would cost between £245 million and £290 million—a staggering amount for a mere 4.5 miles of new road. So, although the Government were very much aware of the importance of the spine road to the regeneration of the black country, it was clear that substantial savings would have to be made to enable the road to be built within the time scale required for the delivery of the development corporation"s programme.
The outcome is that the road will run for about 2.5 miles, and will thereby serve the largest single development site in the development corporation's area. It will provide access to more than 500 acres of redundant and derelict land. Apart from the significant environmental improvement that that will represent, there will be major development and employment benefits for the black country as a whole.
The new road will still be built to dual carriageway standard, with at-grade junctions, at an estimated cost of £93 million. At £36 million per mile, the scheme is still expensive, although it represents a worthwhile investment.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has complaints about individual aspects of the design of the road, which is now subject to consultation on the basis of a planning application. He is aware that there is still scope for detailed revisions to the design, and I hope that what he has said about the impact on his constituents of certain aspects of the design can be accommodated as far as possible by the developers.
However, the fundamental issue whether it is wise to build the road is at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument. My view and that of the Government—and that of almost everybody in the black country, including the development corporation, the chambers of commerce, and businesses in the area—is that it is much better for the black country to have the spine road as proposed than to have no spine road at all.
That is why I am sure that people will come out in droves to support the Government's policy when they have the opportunity later this year.

Mr. Snape: When the Minister said that people would come out in their droves, I presume that he was referring to the forthcoming general election. Is he interested in the fact that people came out in their droves in West Bromwich and Wednesbury to express their unanimous opposition to the present proposals?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) says that that is not the case. The information before me shows that there is substantial support for the scheme. As with every road scheme, some people who live close to the proposed route make detailed observations and representations.
If the Black Country development corporation, which is at the heart of the project and which has promoted it so effectively, were to be closed down, as the hon. Gentleman says a Labour Government would do, the consequences would be dramatic for the black country. Future Government investment of £109 million would be lost in


the next three years, and substantial further investment beyond that would also be lost. Some 1,200 acres of developable land could not be developed. The corporate plan, which includes proposals for the development of some 10 million sq ft of industrial and commercial floor space, could not be realised. Some 3,000 houses in the corporate plan would not be built, and some 18,000 new jobs that would be generated under the corporate plan would not be generated. Furthermore, some £780 million of private investment resulting from the development corporation's work would not take place. That is dramatic stuff.
The other day, Labour Front-Bench spokesmen were in Birmingham saying that they favoured a west midlands

regional development corporation. Why did not they take the opportunity to announce that their policy was to close down the Black Country development corporation, which offers so much prospect of improving employment opportunities, investment and regeneration in the black country?
The Government have committed themselves to improving the black country, and I have pleasure in commending our policy to the House. Although the hon. Gentleman may be concerned about the detail of the road, in substance he is wrong to suggest that it would be better for the black country to have no road at all than to have this £93 million road.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.